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":

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


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:
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.


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.


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.

Thursday, January 29, 2009


Apparently, we elected Jesus Himself, and the Democrats are simply doing His bidding:
Alan Grayson (Dem, FL) saying it "shelters the homeless, and heals the sick. It helps us to look forward to a day where we beat our swords into plowshares."

The hysterical mania of Democrats continues; and this spending spree is nothing very much different from their ususal "do-gooder" (i.e., malignant) narcissism --except possibly a order of magnitude more self-serving and self-congratulatory than ever before. Think of this stimulus package as a particularly virulent form of economic pornography.

At least House Republicans enjoyed bipartisan support (11 Dems did vote against the insanity) and made a stand for restraint, responsibility and reality. So, President Obama got the bipartisan response he demanded--just not quite in the way he expected.


...which I do in the previous post; my heroes have always been cowboys--and I definitely prefer the John Wayne variety over the 'midnight' metrosexual type.

I grew up with cowboys. Not in real life, of course, but on the TV screen. My earliest heroes were those rough, tough shoot-em-up guys whose goal was justice and who seemed oblivious to their own tragic fate as they pursued that justice with single-minded efficiency. This essay by Victor Davis Hanson reminds me of why I loved The Lone Ranger, Will Kane of High Noon and all the others:
Instead, the cowboy more often evokes marshal Will Kane of High Noon. When given the choice of riding out of Hadleyville for a much deserved retirement with his newlywed wife, the tired Gary Cooper instead turns back to face the Miller gang alone. Although his prospects of survival are slim, Kane won’t run or abandon his town that, in fact, would rather appease such killers. In that sense, for some it is not such a bad thing for cowboy Bush to confront regional bullies like Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Kim Jong Il, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — even if the Europeans, like the townspeople of Hadleyville, delude themselves that the Millers of our world would leave them alone if their stubborn self-appointed protector would just ride away. The recent unprovoked attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the verbiage from Iran and Syria should disabuse any of that naiveté.
That Greek tragic theme — Sophocles’ dramas Ajax and Philoctetes center on the flawed hero that we both shun and need — is a Western constant. In the Magnificent Seven, the outcast hired guns ride into save a Mexican village from bandits. Then after the bloodletting, the surviving Yul Brenner and Steve McQueen depart knowing that they are not to enjoy the tranquility and order that they have alone been able to impart to others only through their gunplay.

The truth is that we live in a global Hadleyville that has deluded itself that international communications, cell phones, or the Internet — like the onset of the 19th-century railroad and telegraph — equate to civilization. In fact, they are all only a thin flashy veneer atop a still wild and savage world in which outlaw regimes like North Korea , Saddam’s Iraq , or Iran push until stopped. After all, the present-day United Nations can protect nations and dispense justice about as well as the territorial marshal a three-day-ride away or the corrupt bought sheriff of a cattle baron’s town. And a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mullah Omar, or Saddam Hussein listens to international warnings about as much as Liberty Valance paid heed to the bumbling coward of a sheriff, Link Appleyard.
So privately most appreciate an American Tom Doniphon, Shane or Will Kane who from time to time will appear out of nowhere to stand up to a Saddam, Taliban, or Kim Jung Il — or the recent crop of bullies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The latter all may think that an exasperated lame duck George Bush, suffering from international rebuke and low approval ratings, has dropped his flashy cowboy veneer. Perhaps and probably for the better — but they should still beware: if the now brooding Bush really is a cowboy, then he may deal with a few more rogues before he leaves — caring not at all for our present approval but only for his own code and our future safety when he is gone.

The cowboy hero of my youth was a simple man who minded his own business and valued his freedom. It would take a lot to stir him up, but once aroused, he was unstoppable. His talk might be drawling or lazy, but not his principles; and the violence which was always there under the surface of his placidity could be called on to defend and protect that which he valued. Then he would ride out into the sunset; his job done, his duty fulfilled.

He never turned away from what had to be done; and he never cared much for nuance or appeasement. He always understood and accepted the consequences of his actions, not caring if he was liked or loved; but doing what he thought was right, no matter what the cost.

Today the American cowboy lives on in spirit in many aspects of our society. But if anything, there is even more contempt and anger heaped on him by our modern, cynical, and metrosexual society; who long ago stopped valuing the heroic and sees no need for cowboys in the new age.

Today, any hint of unsophisticated cowboy heroics or clear talk of 'right and wrong' or 'good and evil' are met with scorn by the spoiled elites of the world, who perceive the modern cowboy as an unwanted anachronism and a genuine liability--his mere existence a frightening threat to the fantasy world of love and peace they have created in their minds.

Still, it is lucky for us that our modern cowboys in the law and military continue to do what all real cowboys were born to do.

The American cowboy can be found today all over the world, committed to freedom and fighting to liberate the oppressed. It is the American cowboy who, without complaint and certainly without fanfare, has been risking his and her life, bringing real change and real hope to the world:
What is hope? Well, it is an average American, from an average place, who put on a uniform and fought to liberate oppressed people- and then went home.

We don’t lack for heroes. Our problem is that we have a culture that refuses to recognize them, and prefers instead to worship celebrity; be awed by mellifluous rhetoric; and gratify already-inflated egos.

Zane Gray and many other western authors understood that the only thing standing between civilization and the outlaws who preyed on the innocent were those few quiet cowboys who held to the code of the west. Civilization might hate and despise them for the violence of their methods--but civilization most certainly could not survive without their moral clarity and protection.

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
'Cause they'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love

Cowboys ain't easy to love and they're harder to hold
They'd rather give you a song than diamonds or gold
Lonestar belt buckles and old faded Levis
And each night begins a new day
If you don't understand him, and he don't die young
He'll probably just ride away

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars or drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
'Cause they'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love

Cowboys like smoky old pool rooms and clear mountain mornings
Little warm puppies and children and girls of the night
Them that don't know him won't like him and them that do
Sometimes won't know how to take him
He ain't wrong, he's just different but his pride won't let him
Do things to make you think he's right

Wednesday, January 28, 2009


Remember back in the horribly oppresive days of the Bush Administration when the left was outraged at Bush's "cowboy" behavior--i.e., going it alone in Iraq and supposedly ignoring all our allies and the sacred UN?

Well, meet the new 'Cowboy' in Chief (though more of the Jon Voigt style than that of John Wayne as the template). In a post "O goes Unilateral", Amer Taheri informs us:
First: The new president isn't interested in the so-called Quartet created by the Bush administration. This exercise in multilateral diplomacy sought a common front among the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia in Mideast peace talks. Its dismantling would give America greater control over future negotiations - but would also leave it solely responsible for any failure.

Second: By appointing Mitchell without informing (let alone consulting) the Quartet partners, Obama has in effect called for the resignation of the Quartet's peace envoy, British ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Obama clearly thinks that he can succeed in finding a solution to the Arab-Israel problem, where 10 presidents before him have failed over six decades....

Unconfirmed reports say that the first informal contacts have already taken place, via two Iranian-American intermediaries in contact with Tehran's UN legation in New York.

Here, too, Obama is dismantling his predecessor's multilateral scheme. By seeking unconditional talks with Tehran, he is also setting aside three unanimous, mandatory UN Security Council resolutions.

Now, under normal circumstances, I might cheer that the US is going rogue and finally ignoring the useless UN and following its own national interests instead of admiring the European's often suicidal appeasement toward the Middle East and Islam. But this is exactly what Obama is NOT doing. In fact, its beginning to look like he intends to 'out-UN' the UN and 'out-Europe' the Europeans in taking his appeasement to new and greater heights of appeasementdom.

As I noted just two posts previous to this one, "Egyptian Cleric Justifies The Holocaust, Airs Footage And "Hopes It Will Happen Again But, Allah Willing, At The Hand Of Muslims", it is simply not possible to negotiate with this type of evil. Nor is it anything but a narcissistic delusion to believe that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is all the result of a simple misunderstanding, and that once we get to the root cause of that misunderstanding (and clearly, the 'root cause' has been US foreign policy) then everything will be hunkey-dorey.

But to the left, anyway, reality is much less important than perception::
The Web site keeps a running tally of all United Nations resolutions, decisions and reports condemning this or that country for this or that human rights violation (real or alleged). Between January 2003 and March 2008, tiny Israel – its population not half that of metropolitan Cairo's – was condemned no fewer than 635 times. The runners-up were Sudan at 280, the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 209, and Burma at 183. North Korea was cited a mere 60 times, a third as many as the United States.

Is Israel the world's foremost abuser of human rights? A considerable segment of world opinion thinks that it is, while an equally considerable segment of elite opinion thinks that, even if it isn't, its behavior is nonetheless reprehensible by civilized standards.

I would argue the opposite: that no other country has been so circumspect in using force against the provocations of its enemies....

For reasons both telling and mysterious, Israel has become unpopular among that segment of public opinion that calls itself progressive. This is the same progressive segment that believes in women's rights, gay rights, the rights to a fair trial and to appeal, freedom of speech and conscience, judicial checks on parliamentary authority. These are rights that exist in Israel and nowhere else in the Middle East. So why is it that the country that is most sympathetic to progressive values gets the least of progressive sympathies?
Now, consider this interesting calculation (which was made before the most recent clash between Israel and Hamas):
But drilling down into the data, something interesting turned up. At the time, 1,296 Palestinians had been killed by Israelis – of whom a grand total of 37, or 2.8%, were female. By contrast, of the 496 Israelis killed by Palestinians (including 138 soldiers and policemen), there were 126 female fatalities, or 25%.

To be female is a fairly reliable indicator of being a noncombatant. Females are also half the population. If Israel had been guilty of indiscriminate violence against Palestinians, the ratio of male-to-female fatalities would not have been

These are not complicated facts. Yet the effort to think them through is rarely made.

And it certainly isn't made by progressives who supposedly champion women's rights--they are far too busy protecting Palestinian murderers by rationalizing and excusing their behavior.

Let's consider the 'big lie' of the Middle East:
...the pan-Arabism that once made the Palestinian cause the region's cause is long dead, and the Arab countries have their own worries aplenty. In a decade of reporting in the region, I found it rarely took more than the arching of an eyebrow to get the most candid of Arab thinkers to acknowledge that the tears shed for the Palestinians today outside the West Bank and Gaza are of the crocodile variety. Palestinians know this best of all.

To promote the canard that the troubles of the Arab world are rooted in the Palestinians' misfortune does great harm. It encourages the Arabs to continue to avoid addressing their colossal societal and political ills by hiding behind their Great Excuse: it's all Israel's fault. Certainly, Israel has at times been an obnoxious neighbor, but God help the Arab leaders, propagandists and apologists if a day ever comes when the Arab-Israeli mess is unraveled. One wonders how they would then explain why in Egypt 4 of every 10 people are illiterate; Saudi Arabian Shi'ites (not to mention women) are second-class citizens; 11% of Syrians live below subsistence level; and Jordan's King can unilaterally dissolve Parliament, as he did in 2001. Or why no Middle Eastern government but Israel's and to some extent Lebanon's tolerates freedom of assembly or speech, or democratic institutions like a robust press or civic organizations with independence and clout--let alone unfettered competitive elections.

Indeed, if Israel did not exist, the Arab world would have to invent it, because without Israel to blame all their problems on (and, by extension, America), the nations of the middle east would not be able to go on.

David Frum suggested in an article titled, "Why is it Always About Israel?" that:
Might it not be closer to the truth to say that Arab radicalism is the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute--not the result of it? There is no peace because Israel's neighbours--and too many of the world's Muslims--cannot accept the right of a non-Arab, non-Muslim minority to live unsubjugated in the Middle East. That is the true "core" of the dispute, and it cannot be fixed by negotiation.
Frum was correct in suggesting that the problem cannot be fixed by negotiation, but he is off the mark about the source of the problem. While it is true that Arab radicalism deliberately promotes the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and continually disrupts any possibility of resolving it, the cause of that dispute lies in the psychological dysfunction of the Arabs themselves--which has also become the dysfunction of Islam.

The Arabs as a group have closed off their rational, thinking minds; and with the encouragement and justification of the most medieval aspects of their religion are operating on the basis of the most primitive and dysfunctional of unconscious needs and feelings.

They are indulging in group projection and paranoia--deliberately developed and encouraged by their dysfunctional leaders--in order to maintain their dysfunctional identity, as well as their dysfunctional political and pseudo-religous agenda.

And, if the cleric in this video is any representation of the Arab street--and there is every indication that he is a typical manifestation of the casual hate and bigotry that is rampant in Islamic countries--then Arab/Islamic self-delusion would appear to have no limits.

Psychologically, it is very difficult to abandon a delusion, particularly when that delusion serves the purpose of accounting for an unacceptable status quo. For too long the so-called leaders in the Middle East have --in a manner similar to Jim Jones--been quenching the thirst of their people with poisoned Kool Aid. They have made it easy to believe that all their problems and troubles are caused by the Jews (or America or the West). Maintaining the delusional system and nourishing it regularly is crucial to their identity as individuals and as nations--otherwise it would be necessary to look inside their own hearts and souls for the underlying causes of their political, economic and spiritual stagnation.

SC&A note:
How is it possible that the only endeavor in which the Arab world has managed to excel is religious hate and bigotry?

Many in the Arab world defiantly declare their ‘Arab pride,’ but of course, that really isn’t true. That is a kind of projection. If there really was Arab pride, they would be digging holes for the foundation of schools and factories, and not tunnels to smuggle weapons or explosives for suicide bombers. If the Palestinians wanted to reflect Arab pride, they would build hospitals and not rockets and missiles. The Arab world is not fighting for freedom and democracy. They are fighting to retain the values of oppression, tyranny and dysfunction. There is so much self hatred of what they have come to stand for, that they are willing to blow themselves up in the process. Subconsciously, they know what they are fighting to preserve and how they are fighting, is repulsive to any decent, civilized and religious adherent of any faith. In truth, the Arab world cannot be proud of itself.

The Islamic and Arab cultures that once contributed mightily to the progress of mankind, have willingly become the poster children for religious intolerance, hate, violence and even genocide. There is very little the Arab world has to be proud of and pointing to past glory only serves to highlight how far they have fallen. All the phony ‘Arab pride’ in the world has not motivated them to build. All they have done is destroy- and that destruction is a symptom of self hatred.

People who hate themselves, destroy everything around them. People that believe in their higher selves, build. The same is true for nations. Nations, societies and cultures are not remembered for what they destroy. They are remembered for what they have built.

Or, consider this, from a companion post from SC&Awhich delved into issues of good and evil:
Great societies and cultures are always measured by what they build, not by what they destroy. Great religions are measure by how many lives are saved in God’s name, not by how many are taken in God’s name. Great nations are measured by how many people are elevated to freedom and not by how many are enslaved and deprived of freedom.

This is remarkably astute. And it is little wonder that President Obama uses Siggy's words to chide Muslims in his recent interview on Al-Arabiya:
THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Nice words, but frankly, Mr. President, I don't think that Hamas recognizes that: nor does Hezbollah; nor Iran. Certainly Al Qaeda and the Taliban don't. Nor, I suspect do many of the average citizens of most Islamic countries, who have been fed a diet of racial bigotry and hate since their infancy, and who know no other way to think about their situation in life.

As a people and culture, they long ago abandoned the ability to create, and now only possess the capacity to destroy. The people live in poverty and oppression, controlled only by the belief that their situation is the fault of "the Jews" (or 'little Satan') or America (the big kahuna).

But, this is the legacy of psychological projection and paranoia on a cultural scale. The unacceptable thoughts or feelings are denied ("not owned") by the person or group experiencing them, and instead are projected onto another individual or--as in this case--a group (racism, anti-semitism etc. are all projections). 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 wholly within themselves.

There is certainly plenty of paranoia and projection running around in that part of the world. Recently we have even been able to witness how the paranoia and hate are eagerly passed on to the next generation, thus preserving the externalization of blame and preventing any real growth or maturity as a people and ensuring the continuation of the pathology that is destroying any ability to build a functioning society.

In fact, it has become the hallmark of Arab/Islamic decivilization, dysfunction and deterioration; and which is psychologically inevitable when a group resorts to paranoia and psychological projection to defend against reality. It took them centuries to achieve this degree of psychological, political and cultural backwardness.

Can you name one thing that the Arab world has contributed to humanity in the last 60 years?

Israel on the other hand has been a model of a society that creates and contributes to the human family:
Israel, a nation the size of New Jersey, can only lay claim to the following achievements:
-Israel has more museums per capita than any other country in the world.
-Israel has the second highest output of books published per citizen in the world.
-Israelis hold more patents per person than do citizens of any other nation.
-More than 85% of all solid waste in Israel is treated in an environmentally sound manner.
-Israeli companies, Amdocs, Comverse and Nice pioneered voicemail, SMS and other cellular phone services.
-Israel has the highest concentration of high tech companies industries in the world, relative to it’s population.
-ICQ, the technology that powers AOL Instant Messenger, was developed in 1996 by a team of 4 young Israelis.
-Israeli start-up company TransChip developed the first high resolution camera that fits on a single electronic chip, for use in cellular phones.
-Israel is one of only eight countries in the world capable of launching their own satellites into space.
-Israelis developed the world’s first cellphone at the Motorola research lab in Haifa, that companies largest research center in the world.
-Israel ranks third, after the US and Canada, in the number of publicly traded companies on Wall Street.
-Israel has more scientists and engineers per capita than any other nation in the world.
-American industry giants such as GM, Ford and Lockheed Martin manage their manufacturing facilities using software written by Tecnomatix, an Israeli company.
-Israeli company Given Imaging developed a video camera small enough to fit inside of a pill. The camera helps doctors diagnose digestive tract diseases.
-Israeli scientists developed the first computerized radiation free diagnostic scanning device for detecting breast cancer.
-Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation in the world.

Not bad for the offspring of monkeys and pigs.

Or, how about these humanitarian accomplishments:
Turkey, 1999- Israel sends 100 tons of relief and a field hospital, as well as a 250 member rescue team. They find 12 survivors and retrieve 146 bodies. The hospital performed 40 major surgeries and delivered 15 babies.

Bosnia, 1992- In one day, Israel sent 13 tons of food and medical supplies to Zagreb. Israel was the first country to grant Muslim Bosnians refugee status and citizenship, in 1993.

Kosovo, 1999- Israel sends a 100 bed hospital and 70 medical personnel, as well as 100 tons of aid for the Kosovar refugees.

India, 2001- Following the January earthquake, Israel sends a field hospital and 150 medical personnel. Over 1200 treated and 12 babies delivered.

Nairobi, 1999- After the American Embassy bombing, Israel dispatches 150 search and rescue, medical and rescue dogs and their handlers. Also sent were 30 tons of sophisticated rescue equipment. Three survivors were dug out of the wreckage.

Mexico City, 1985- Israel sends search and rescue teams as well as trained S&R dogs to assist, after 2 powerful earthquakes leave thousands buried under the rubble.

Armenia, 1988- Israel sends search and rescue units and aid following an earthquake that leaves 30,000 dead and 50,000 homeless. Israeli medical teams treat 2500 at a field hospital and evacuate 61 to Israel for advanced medical treatment.

Buenos Aires, 1994- Israel dispatches 40 search and rescue team members as well as sophisticated rescue equipment, to help in the aftermath of the Jewish Community Center bombing. Many buried victims were rescued and treated.

Afghanistan, 1998- Israel sends 15 tons of supplies, including tents, blankets, food and medicine after an earthquake hit the northern part of that country.

Colombia, 1999- Israel sends aid sent to that country after a major earthquake.

Greece, 1999- Israel send aid and and search and rescue teams to that country after an earthquake.

El Salvador, 2001- Israel send aid after a major earthquake. A medical team was also dispatched.

Vietnamese Boat People, 1977- there were 66 Vietnamese boat people granted refuge in Israel after having been denied safe haven by other countries.

Cameroon, 1986- An Israeli medical team and supplies were sent to help people after a volcanic eruption. Thousand are treated for respiratory problems and burns.

Central America, 1988- In response to the devastation of hurricane Mitch, Israeli medical personnel and aid is sent to Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador and Nicaragua.

Bulgaria, 1997- Medical supplies (over a ton) were sent as a humanitarian gesture to alleviate shortages of medical supplies.

Rwanda, 1994- As a result of a bloody civil war that left over a million dead and millions more as refugees, Israel send 270 doctors and other medical personnel. A field hospital is established. Over 3000 refugees are treated in a 40 day period.

The list goes on- Mozambique, Ethiopia and Sri Lanka, just to name a few others. And it isn't just about disasters. See this and wonder- wonder, how for even a moment, we would consider seeing Israel the way the Terrorist Supporters & Apologists want you to see her.

Despite her own trials at home, Israel is on record as coming to the aid of over 140 nations.

Meanwhile, on Hamas TV. Kuku and Fufu teach the little children how to kill Jews.

Our new Cowboy in Chief talks a good game--but then, his lovely rhetoric is what he is best known for. What he acutally does is often exactly the opposite of that rhetoric, and it has always--always--conformed to the leftist, "progressive" agenda that motivates his every, calculated action.

The question remains: is this midnight cowboy going to sell Israel down the river by appeasing Hamas and Iran and terrorrists everywhere? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The Taliban are hoping for a complete caving...what a surprise!
The Taliban welcomed President Barack Obama's order to close Guantanamo but said peace would only come if he reverses the "satanic policies" of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

In a message posted on online jihadist forums, the Taliban also called on Obama to close all "evil" US detention centers for militants, "completely withdraw" from Iraq and Afghanistan and "stop defending Israel."

"Obama's move to close Guantanamo detention center is a positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world," said the message, a copy of which was obtained from the US-based monitor, the SITE Intelligence Group.

UPDATE II: President Obama, let me give you a little psychological tip: when you appease, excuse or enable bad behavior, that behavior will only escalate:
A day after President Obama struck a conciliatory tone toward Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged Washington on Wednesday to apologize for its actions toward his country over the past 60 years and said it was unclear whether the new American administration was merely shifting tactics or wanted real change.

Gee, I guess the Messiah has given them real hope that their bigotry, hate, entitlement and dreams of world conquest actually have a chance now.


Here is a sumptuous and exquisite piece of music from Steve Dobrogosz' "Requiem"...Enjoy:

More on the composer here.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Egyptian Cleric Justifies The Holocaust, Airs Footage And "Hopes It Will Happen Again But, Allah Willing, At The Hand Of Muslims".

(h/t SC&A via LGF)

How can you negotiate with this kind of evil? It's hard to believe it even exists this openly and unashamedly in the 21st century. Or, that it is culturally sanctioned , encouraged, and celebrated; taught to children from infancy to insure that the dysfunction and bigotry is passed from generation to generation.

I suspect most Americans simply cannot imagine that this degree of racial hatred and genocidal feeling is casually accepted by Muslim society and motivates their behavior. Indeed, it is so culturally pathological it is hard for even a psychiatrist to believe that this is 'intellectually' mainstream in that part of the world.


**Warning** This is a long post!
It is organized in three parts. Part I is a reprint of an older post "When Karl Met Sigmund" which is extremely relevant to what is going on today in our country as we ignomoniously slide into a neo-marxist and fascist state, not with a revolutionary bang, but with a "hope and change" whimper. Part II will describe how Sigmund's ideas were trivialized and perverted so as to fit into the neo-Marxist's postmodern manifesto; and Part III shows how the left's 'therapeutic psychobabble' is now the basis of the economic and foreign policy initiatives our saintly postmodern President is intending to implement.


Many have observed that the field of psychology seems to attract those on the political left. As far as I can tell, there is no really good explanations about why this should be, but I have a theory.

It is a theory that goes back to when Marx met Freud--not literally, but intellectually. For Marx's followers, it was love at first sight. But for poor Sigmund, the relationship was toxic--at once popularizing his thoughts among the intelligentsia, but at the same time distorting them out of all recognition.

Let me explain.

We will have to go back to the first half of the 20th century to understand how and why this all came about.

In the 30's and 40's it became increasingly clear to Marxists that something was fundamentally wrong with the master's economic hypotheses. Like the followers of Jesus, they had been waiting so long for the expected collapse of capitalism, and had been so encouraged by the Great Depression, they expected that it wouldn't be long now.

But like a bad dream, capitalism rebounded stronger than ever.

Why, they asked themselves, are the proletariat not rising up in rebellion against the oppressive forces of capitalism?

By the 50's, capitalism was actually flourishing, and so too were Marx's "oppressed proletariat". Far from rising up against their "oppressors", they were buying into the capitalist system and the "American Dream". The sharp differences between the classes was eroding, and more and more of those in poverty were finding their way into the middle class and gaining hope for themselves and their children.

Not only that, the proletariat astonishingly seemed relatively happy and content!

Happy and content people do not generally initiate violent revolutions nor rise up against their oppressors--particularly when they don't feel oppressed, but feel empowered.

And, furthermore, much to the puzzlement and subsequent rage of the intellectuals, in those places in the world where socialist and communist theory had triumphed, wealth was disappearing; initiative was in decline; and the human misery index was climbing.

The "great experiment" in the Soviet Union was failing abysmally; and in 1956, when Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary and violently crushed all dissent, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the socialist utopias were not all they were cracked up to be. Even today, many on the left cannot bring themselves to admit that the application of Marx to the real world had only succeeded in bringing about abject poverty, misery, death, and slogans. Many many slogans.

Instead of creating a utopia for the proletariat, Marx and his theories only generated the conditions for societal suicide.

One might have hoped that the resultant rage and frustration of the intellectuals who mastermined the whole thing could have been directed inward, resulting in a suicide pact that would have eliminated them from history.

History was not so fortunate.

Instead, it was about this time that Karl's descendents met Sigmund. In searching around for explanations for the sad failures of Marxism, Freud's theories of the unconscious seemed like a lifeline--a potential explanation of why everything had gone wrong.

Instead of blaming the theory, they blamed human nature.

Instead of understanding how capitalism worked with human nature, instead of against it, they claimed that capitalism had psychologically repressed the proletariat!

If only they could tap into that instinctual energy, then they could have control over the proletariat and bring about the desired political and economic result.

So it was that the relationship was initiated. As Stephen Hicks notes (pg 167-8):

...Marcuse concluded [that] capitalism's repression of human nature may be socialism's salvation. Capitalism's rational technocracy suppresses human nature to the point that it bursts out in irrationalisms--in violence, criminality, racism, and all of societies other pathologies. But by encouraging those irrationalisms the new revolutionaries can destroy the system. So the first task of the revolutionary is to seek out those idividuals and energies on the margins of society; the outcast, the disorderly, and the forbidden--anyone and anything that capitalism's power structure has not yet succeeded in commodifying and dominating totally. All such marginalized and outcast elements will be "irrational," "immoral," and even "criminal," especially by capitalist definitiion, but that is precisely what the revolutionary needs. Any such outcast element could "break through the false consciousness [and] provide the Archimedian point for a larger emancipation."

As I noted in this post, Freud argued that human instincts are indeed out of sync with modern civilization; and that aggression and other instinctual needs, once absolutely necessary for survival in a dangerous world, are now frequently only archaic impulses that impede our ability to live happily in the present day and age.

He posited that the same aggression that was once directed towards survival, in the modern era is frequently turned inward, to the self, rather than outward toward the environment, and causes the psychological phenomenon of depression. In psychiatry we refer to this as "aggression turned inward".

But the mistake the Marxists made in marrying their theory with Freud was in thinking that somehow this fundmental aspect of human nature was only present under capitalism. If they thought for a moment, they might have realized that violence, racism, criminality and all the other pathologies of society, are actually pathologies of the individual--independent of the society.

Individual human nature must be taken into account when one evaluates the usefulness and consequences of certain economic and political systems that are advocated in the world today. Humans are clearly well-suited to some things and not to others.

But there are some social, economic, and political systems that like to indulge in biological fantasy and place human beings on a Procrustean bed to try to adjust human nature to their theories. The more out of touch with reality are the biological fantasies , the more the society tends toward catastrophy, human misery, and death. The worse of those societies are engaged in constant war/jihad and domination over others. You can identify them by the accumulation of wealth in the leaders as the followers become more and more impoverished.

The left somehow continues to believe that capitalism is what brings these things to pass, despite all historical evidence to the contrary. The truth is that, among social, political and economic systems, democratic capitalism is probably the one and only system that is most compatible with human nature.

Although portrayed as encouraging the "survival of the fittest", capitalism simultaneously encourages cooperation for mutually beneficial trade as well as competition. Instead of encouraging war and dominance; capitalism encourages trust and human cooperation; as well as alliances to maximize productivity and wealth creation. Far from concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, capitalism makes it possible for anyone to accumulate wealth (contrast for example the number of people who earn over $100,000 a year in the U.S., with those do in Cuba. The only really wealthy person there is Fidel Castro and his cronies.

But the Marxists of the mid 20th century were correct in a way, when they started their love affair with Sigmund. Freud's theories do indeed explain why capitalism is successful in the real world and marxist theory is not.

Capitalism allows the basic nature of man to creatively express itself by mastering the physical world. The instinctual energy Freud spoke of is directed away from the destructive pursuit of power over other people and sublimated toward acts of creation, which further both the individual's life and all of civilization.

The Marxist intellectuals' big mistake was in not recognizing the difference between repression and suppression. And in not understanding the way psychological defense mechanisms work (particularly the healthy or 'mature' defense mechanisms such as sublimation, anticipation, humor, altruism and supression) .

They correctly noticed that the instinctual energy of the proletariat was being harnessed both for the individual's good as well as the society under capitalism; and yet were unable to appreciate the fact that unless you accept the reality of human nature and give it the freedom to transform all its most negative aspects into something positive for the individual and the culture/society (which is what the mature defenses do so creatively), then you end up crushing all human initiative, creativity, and productivity.

Societies can either encourage the development of these healthy, mature psychological defenses with which to cope with reality; or they can encourage the development and expression of the worse aspects of human nature--i.e., those which result in violence, racism, criminality and all the other pathologies. Either way, social, political and economic systems can only encourage certain human traits that result in civilized behavior; or, they can encourage those that are barbaric and antisocial. Human nature is the same, though, no matter what type of society or political system it finds itself in.

Simply put, totalitarian systems--whether from the left or the right (and that includes Marxism in any of its incarnations, whether religious or secular)-- actively promote the most negative, primitive, and immature aspects of human nature. In fact, they give a societal/institutional blessing to such behavior; and thrive on the resulting projection, paranoia, distortion, and denial of reality.

So the relationship between Marx and Freud has not really accomplished what the left's intellectuals wanted. Instead of diagnosing the pathology of capitalism, real understanding of Freud's psychological theories actually exposes the inadequacies and fatal flaws of Marxist theory.

Because nowhere is there more violence, naked aggression, envy, greed, oppression, racism, injustice, slavery, poverty, and misery than in the shining examples of socialism and communism in today's world.

So, getting back to my theory of why psychology seems to attract so many on the left. It relies on the fact that many of those who pursue advanced education are, by the time they reach college, pretty much already immersed and completely brainwashed by the ubiquitous Marxism that infuses almost all aspects of K-12 education. And modern Marxism relies heavily on the popularized and distorted tenets of Freudian thought for its continued existence.

Therefore they tend to be already invested in the psychological holy trinity: the deification of victimhood; the supremacy of feelings over reason, and the glorification of self-esteem over self-control; and are predisposed to think of a career in psychology as the heroic pursuit of "social justice" for the poor, unhappy and oppressed masses.

In other words, they have been immersed in the culture of 'psychiatry lite'; or, as some have called it, therapeutic psychobabble.


Thus, Karl met Sigmund and we almost immediately began to see the distortion and perversion of psychiatry as a medical discipline and it's transformation into 'pop' psychiatry. In particular, the therapeutic, psychosocial aspect of psychiatry was picked up by the political left and deftly manipulated so as to infuse their political ideology with postmodern jibberish and therapeutic psychobabble.

If you believe that "therapeutic psychobabble" is actually therapeutic, then that is prima facie evidence that you aren't much of a therapist and/or you haven't got a clue about what therapy is all about and the hard work it entails for both the therapist and the patient. In fact, this amazingly popular psychiatry (which has spawned the whole 'self-help' industry) is composed of equal measures of simplistic and feel-good advise; and childlike utopian notions of what human nature is all about. Frequently it becomes the major impediment for actual patients seeking help for emotional problems and trying to take control back over their lives because it reinforces passivity, emotional excess, and irresponsibility. As for individuals who aren't patients (but soon will be, most likely) it promotes a passive world view, where a person is the helpless victim of forces outside their control but is 'empowered' to feel strongly about it.

Let's look at a just few aspects of this pervasive psychobabble that has permeated the culture to such an extent that it grossly interferes with real psychological health and functional coping mechanisms:

One of the big pieces of the psychobabble industry is the promotion of "self esteem" at the expense of self control and personal responsibility. But, contrary to popular myth, self esteem is not the holy grail of psychological health. In fact, it is not necessarily even good for you, and most bullies, tyrants and other dysfunctional people fairly ooze self esteem.

Most people confuse "self-esteem" with a "sense of self". It is the latter--not the former, that is so often screwed up in the angry, violent, grandiose, and generally narcissistic people in the world. If you have a healthy "sense of self", you are likely to have a healthy self-esteem; and a healthy self-esteem is not the same at all as a high self-esteem.

The psychological defect that leads to so many problems for people in their lives is a defective or distorted sense of one's SELF. The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person develops with regard to their self. It used to be widely believed that low self-esteem was a cause of violence, but in reality, violent individuals, groups and nations happen to think very well of themselves. Do you really suppose that individuals like Ahmadinejad or the Iranian mullahs suffer from poor self-esteem? Do you think that the bullies and thugs of Hamas or Hezbollah or Al Qaeda had "fragile" egos as they made their way through life? And that they were simply misunderstood or had unhappy childhoods and that is what made them so bad? If only social conditions be improved and poverty eliminated then the world would not see the development of such people--or so goes the thinking, anyway.

I'm afraid not. The reality is that human nature is what it is whether you are rich or poor; or whatever color your skin happens to be; and without regard for the particular political structure you live in. Exaggerated self-esteem that is not based on personal achievement or responsibility is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or a psychopath.

The pop-psychology that promulgated the widespread belief that you must, above all, nurture children's self-esteem, neglected to mention that if the sense of self was already damaged, all the social engineers would manage to do was to create a narcissistic monster. That is why our society is filled with the pursuit of unhealthy narcissistic gratification. In this new century, that narcissism seems to be morphing into an even more malignant sociopathy that pervades society and impacts almost all our social, political, and educational institutions.

Our cultural focus on enhancing "self-esteem" has resulted in the near-worship of emotions and feelings at the expense of reason and thought; on emphasizing "root causes" and victimhood, instead of demanding that behavior be civilized and that individuals exert self-discipline and self-control--no matter what they are "feeling".

This brings me to the second bit of psychobabble: the emphasis on and near-worship of feelings and emotion, which felt to be "superior" to reason for enlightened living in the modern world.

Feelings and emotion can be extremely valuable tools for perceiving the world; particularly if an individual does not allow feelings alone dictate his or her behavior, but instead uses emotion, tempered by reason; or reason, tempered by emotion as the basis of action.

But somehow, our culture--once founded on and dedicated to reason and rational thought, which is what has led to the creation of all the wonders we enjoy in the modern world--has slowly evolved into a cult that worships emotion and whim at the expense of reason.

There are many psychological [unconscious and conscious] factors that can make one's feelings completely untrustworthy. These include the immature psychological defenses which, if unexamined in the cold light of insight and conscious thought can result in denial, paranoia, projection, displacement and many other dysfunctional behaviors.

The truth is that there are countless ways that unconscious processes within ourselves can distort our responses to others and to reality itself.

Growing up and attaining maturity requires that we take a moment to consider such factors playing a role in our emotions before we act on those emotions. If we come to know ourselves and understand our own weaknesses, vulnerabilities, limitations and secrets; then our emotional responses to people or to the world can be very valuable tools to help interpret the world. But they are only tools, and if not used wisely, they can do more harm than good. Feelings cannot be used in a court of law--for good reason. And they are not ultimate truth in the court of reality, either.

These days we hear a lot about "coping with stress"; and about how "stress" is behind all sorts of medical and psychological problems. Of course, what is really meant by this is that there are many situations in life--some of the common and some not so--that we must respond to in order to live our lives. Stress can be understood as a frustrated "fight or flight" response.

Our bodies, which have not changed much since the days of the caveman, are hardwired to respond to danger in certain ways. Either we gird our loins and fight; or we take flight and run away. These two strategies covered pretty much everything for our ancient ancestors had to deal with to survive, and they lived or died depending on effectively these strategies were utilized.

In our modern world, it is no longer appropriate or even civilized--most of the time and in most situations--to do either. Imagine if you will, the office worker called on the carpet by the boss, who reacts to this threat to his livelihood by punching the boss; or by running screaming from the boss's office. Neither response would be considered very stable.

We hear on the news fairly frequently of such occurrences; e.g., the postal worker who comes in and shoots his superior, and--as long as he's at it--a few coworkers he holds grudges against.

The point is, that our body's hardware is designed to respond to perceived danger in this way, whether we like it or not. Of course, the boss yelling at us is not the same degree of danger our ancestors used to deal with, but our bodies aren't able to tell the difference. Hence, as we became civilized and our interactions with others and with our environment became more complex, the normal physiological responses of our bodies to danger remained the same, but the behavioral expectation --i.e., how we acted on the physiological imperative -- changed significantly.

And so, the concept of stress was born. We can't often fight; and we can't often run away; and when we do, significant problems can arise for us and for society. Our bodies still physiologically respond, but the usual behaviors that discharge the built-up toxins and return us to a physiological normality are gone. Psychologically and physiologically, this tends to take a toll on our bodies; either as physical or emotional problems.

Most people are aware when they are experiencing stress and the physical and emotional discomfort can be a powerful reason to change whatever behavior is causing the sensation. Stress can also be a source of extra energy (e.g., in sports) if the physical and emotional aspects of it can be converted to a less destructive form. This is where the concept of psychological defense mechanisms comes in.

Many people seem to think that ALL stress is bad for you and must be eliminated from your life. But this position fails to understand the importance and necessity of stress in our lives.

Where once our stress response existed merely to protect us from extreme danger (and still does); today it is a key biological element that can promote and and encourage psychological growth and development and help us to learn mastery over ourselves and our environment.

So this is the good thing about stress. Stress and our response to it can help us to mature and expand our capabilities. Without stress, there is little motivation to change or improve either ourselves or our environment. Too little stress and we stagnate. Too much, and we are at risk of falling apart. But just the right amount of irritation can encourage us to create a pearl!

If you have any doubts about the power and sanctity that can be yours if victimhood status can be officially confered upon you; or of the endless moral benefits of being "oppressed"; just consider that even a mean SOB like Saddam Hussein can be deemed a victim of American oppression--just ask Ramsey Clark how that is done! Or that, for the sake of the Palestinians--the most publicized and creative perpetual victims in all of history-- a group of "experts" were recently convened in Iran to prove that the entire world has been bamboozled by a clever Jewish conspiracy regarding the Holocaust. Those darn Jews!

Holocaust Deniers are particularly noteworthy in the annals of victimhood, and demonstrate a degree of unsurpassable cleverness because they have managed to take the actual victims of a horrific episode in world history and twist that history to turn those real victims into oppressors! Surely one of the most magnificent applications of the new victimhood rules.

In the quasi-religious cult of victimhood that is part of today's leftist, Marxist dogma, "victimhood" has been identified as critical; and promoting it and nurturning it has become a way of life.

This has come about in part, because many on the political left have an intense narcissistic need to see themselves as "champions of the oppressed"; hence the constant need to find and maintain an oppressed class of people to champion. But it also dovetails nicely into the the Marxist dialectic that underlies that ideology. The world is divided up into two groups, you see: the oppressors (i.e., white, male,heterosexual, Republican, Americans or Israelis) and the oppressed (everyone else).

The political left proudly stands in solidarity with the oppressed victims of the world; and it is worth noting that their stance is particularly ego-gratifying if those they champion are undeserving victims (i.e., similar to Alfred P. Doolittle's "undeserving poor"-- who have needs as great as the most deserving of victims; in fact, their needs are even greater).

What all the modern psychobabble about self esteem, feelings, stress and victimhood lead to is a culture of pervasive and malignant narcissism.

Instead of healthy ambition, goals and ideals, the malignant narcissist pursues either the sociopathic selfish type of gratification; or the sociopathic selfless variey.

This is a complicated topic, but I discuss it at length in this series of posts . Suffice it to say that our current culture either emphasizes and encourages a bloated sociopathic grandiosity or it encourages the exact opposite- a selfless sociopathy. Both are extremely dysfunctional and malignant for the individual as well as the society at large; and psychological health requires a synthesis of these two extremes of narcissism. The celebrity culture and the quest for superstardom, constant ego-gratification and promotion of self-esteem (at the expense of self-control) has encouraged an unhealthy grandiosity; while at the same time overcompensating with an unhealthy pseudo-selflessness that manifests itself in politics and religion.

The holy trinity of therapeutic psychobabble, the glue that holds this passive, helpless, and ultimately nihilistic world view together is : the deification of victimhood; the supremacy of feelings over reason, and the glorification of self-esteem over self-control.

Those therapists who subscribe to the psychobabble religion and indoctrinate their patients into it, tend to be predisposed to think of themselves as heroically pursuing "social justice" for the poor, unhappy and oppressed masses. But, when you peel away the layers of pseudo-Freudian babble, you discover that the basic premises, the foundation--or "default mode" if you will of the babbler therapist, is the tacit acceptance of Marxist political theory, which neatly sets up the conditions for individual, cultural and societal suicide.

The Marxist dialectic insists that you can either be an "oppressor" or one of the poor "oppressed". From the Marxist moral perspective it is clearly much better to be a victim of oppression. Thus this world view neatly reinforces the passivity and helplessness of victimhood by proclaiming it to be a higher moral value; and, when the only way to get out of this oppressed victim state is to enter the morally inferior ranks of the "oppresors" most people will prefer to reap the rewards of their victimhood--which in our Marxist-drenched culture have proliferated beyond imagining.

Just ask those who finally escape from the oppressed victim mindset only to discover to their astonishment that they are now perceived as "the enemy" and a "traitor" to their gender, race, class, politics etc. etc.--I'm sure you've heard the rhetoric.

Again, a culture or society can either encourage the development of healthy, mature psychological defenses with which to cope with reality and channel human nature; or they can encourage the development and expression of the worse aspects of basic human nature--i.e., those which result in violence, racism, criminality and all the other pathologies. Either way, social, political and economic systems can only encourage certain human traits that result in civilized behavior; or, encourage those that are barbaric and antisocial. Human nature is the same, though, no matter what type of society or political system it finds itself in.

The therapeutic psychobabble that has become the default mode of our culture leads inevitably to the kind of societally dysfuntional and suicidal behavior we witnessed in the recent British confrontation with Iran; and which we witness almost daily now in our dealings with Islamofascism. Our default mode is suicidal. The enemy's is homicidal.

It is a perfect postmodern fit.

...and love was suddenly in the air. Karl's marriage to the perfect postmodern politician/demagogue , who possessed all the necessary qualities to implement the economic and foreign policy strategies that are logically consistent with and derived from therapeutic psychobabble, was a dream come true for the floundering left.

In Obama they finally have the opportunity to translate the psychobabble into real political action. Let's look first at how the therapeutical inclined culture, one saturated with psychobabble and good feelings, approaches foreign policy.

Victor Davis Hanson stated in an essay titled "Why Study War" (in City Journal):

Indeed, by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking—as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, frustrated by the Bush administration’s intransigence in the War on Terror, flew to Syria, hoping to persuade President Assad to stop funding terror in the Middle East. She assumed that Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom might in fact destroy him. For a therapeutically inclined generation raised on Oprah and Dr. Phil—and not on the letters of William Tecumseh Sherman and William Shirer’s Berlin Diary—problems between states, like those in our personal lives, should be argued about by equally civilized and peaceful rivals, and so solved without resorting to violence.

Yet it’s hard to find many wars that result from miscommunication. Far more often they break out because of malevolent intent and the absence of deterrence. Margaret Atwood also wrote in her poem: “Wars happen because the ones who start them / think they can win.” Hitler did; so did Mussolini and Tojo—and their assumptions were logical, given the relative disarmament of the Western democracies at the time. Bin Laden attacked on September 11 not because there was a dearth of American diplomats willing to dialogue with him in the Hindu Kush. Instead, he recognized that a series of Islamic terrorist assaults against U.S. interests over two decades had met with no meaningful reprisals, and concluded that decadent Westerners would never fight, whatever the provocation—or that, if we did, we would withdraw as we had from Mogadishu.

And yet the political left and it's operational arm, the Democratic Party (including Speaker Pelosi, Secretary of State Clinton, and President Obama) have fundamentally accepted and overly rely on this idea that miscommunication is the root cause of all disagreements.

It is this idea that is behind much of the diplomatic insanity (i.e., lunatic appeasement) that runs through the Democratic Party's foreign policy initiatives. It is an almost shocking degree of naivete about people. In fact, it is also shockingly self-centered (i.e., narcissistic) because it assumes that your behavior is the primary determinant of other people's (e.g., "...Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom might in fact destroy him) ; and that other people do not have thoughts, feelings, or motivations separate from or distinct from one's self.

Now, consider Bruce Thornton's thoughts about two important factors that keep the West vulnerable to terrorism: multiculturalism and what he refers to as "the therapeutic sensibility":
The therapeutic sensibility that now dominates our public thinking reinforces this tendency to excuse Islamic terror. Unlike the old tragic vision of the classical West, which saw human suffering as the consequence of an imperfect human nature and our own bad choices, the therapeutic sensibility sees suffering as a temporary glitch caused by unjust social and economic structures. Evil is just a superstition, for people’s environments, not their own choices, cause destructive actions. The terrorists whom the unenlightened call “evil,” then, are themselves victims; we should assist them in reforming their unjust environments. Meanwhile, we ignore the numerous Islamists, from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, who tell us very plainly why they want to destroy us: because we are infidels who must convert to Islam, live in submission to it, or die.

Such hypersensitivity compromises our fight against Islamic radicalism in a thousand ways, ranging from self-censorship — for example, the Washington Post’s recent refusal to run an innocuous installment of Berke Breathed’s comic strip Opus for fear of offending Muslims — to politically correct warfare that refuses to accept the brutality, destruction, and death that have always been the cargo of war. We have seen such self-defeating behavior repeatedly in Iraq, where the Army’s rules of engagement have made U.S. forces hesitant to fire on mosques even though terrorists frequently use minarets as firing platforms.
Is this what Karl took away from his meeting with Sigmund? Freud was obsessed with science and its rigorous examination of reality. But Karl failed to appreciate that (at least his heirs did). Healing and compassion, kumbaya and love; make love not war, all evolved into a culturally-sanctioned embrace of a dysfunctional perception of reality; and directly led to a need to support the enemies of America and freedom and all the appeasement and counterproductive foreign policy actions advocated (primarily) by Democrats.

The Democrat's foreign policy assumptions fit in perfectly with the most revered elements of the therapeutic psychobabble so prevalent today. What we have is not a failure to communicate; no, what we have is a failure to use cognition and reason; a failure to have ego boundaries; and a strongly held belief that if you just wish for something very very hard, you can make it so because you are so special (i.e., magical thinking and the belief that feelings always trump reason).

Let us now see how the postmodern economic policy of our neo-Marxists is infused with the same sort of psychobabble.

A lone voice crying out in the wilderness of government regulation, more government regulation and the creeping "social justice" utopian (i.e., socialist) fantasies of the so-called 'leaders' in Congress:
The US government is executing a coup d’etat of capitalism and I fear that we will pay the price for many years to come. Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke and a host of others tell us the credit market is not working and the only way to get it working again is for the government to intervene. They claim this intervention is urgently needed and if we don’t act, the consequences are dire. Dire, as in New Depression dire. Have these supposed experts on capitalism forgotten how it really works?

The “crisis” we face today is not a creation of the market. Government intervention over many years (but especially the last year) is what brought us to the point where we’ve placed our hopes for economic recovery on the good intentions of a Congress facing re-election in a few weeks.

We are not on the verge of a new depression. The housing bubble collapse in California, Florida and a few other states is not enough to bring down the entire banking system. Investors who made mistakes in these markets should be held responsible and those who navigated the Fed-distorted market should be rewarded for their wisdom and prudence. Enacting the Paulson plan will not allow that to happen and our economy will suffer for it in the long run. The Japanese tried to prop up failed banks in the aftermath of the bursting of their twin bubbles and the result was 15 years of stagnation. Why are we emulating a strategy that is a demonstrable failure? A better alternative would be to allow capitalism to work as it should and stop the interventions of the Fed in the money market. Trust capitalism. It works.

Capitalism always gets blamed for these crises, and indeed, markets have their ups and downs; as well as their cycles and psychology. But, it is always the government interference that makes the normal ups and downs catastrophic; or creates the hysteria that leads to panic and idiocy. It is the under-the-table deals and winks exchanged between dishonest, immoral businessmen and dishonest, immoral legisislators drunk on the power they wield over others that lead to the unwholesome greed and self-destructive deals; and it is underscored by a willingness--no, a desperate need-- to ignore reality and the long-term consequences/destructiveness of their own behavior.

And behind the scapegoating of capitalism for their own immoral behavior lies the unquestioned premise--held by leaders of both the left and the right--that capitalism is just so evil that it needs to be firmly 'controlled' and 'regulated'--as if it were a horrible monster just waiting to escape from its bonds and kill us all.

Instead of holding individuals and companies accountable for their choices and mistakes; instead of encouraging personal responsibility and allowing failure (which results in learning and changed behavior), our economic policy is geared to reinforce irresponsibiity and encourage victimhood. Everyone is a 'victim' of the 'dog eat dog', greedy capitalist system.

But remember, human nature does not change depending on whether a capitalist or socialist/communist economy is in play. Greed, abuse of power, ruthless behavior and any other failing you may attribute to human beings will be in play whenever humans are involved.

As I noted in a recent post Hakuna Matata:
The truth is that we have entered into a frenzied neo-Keynesian, neo-Galbraithian revival in government policy. Just sit back and be happy with all the largesse being handed out and remember that, thinking about the “long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”

It's an economic philosophy that is understood clearly by a person in the throes of an acute manic episode; caught up in his excesses, spending money recklessly on all those unrealistic and grandiose plans. Many manic patients see themselves as 'saviors of the world'; and, in a perverted way from their perspective, they are--because in their own mind, they have carefully built a sturdy wall to keep reality at bay from their fantasy. All in all, mania and its less histrionic sibling hypomania are just two of the more flamboyant manifestations of psychological denial.

The entire 'hopeychangey' thing with its endless bailouts that take federal spending where no man has gone before, is simply economic therapeutic psychobabble.

Societies which integrate within their structure creative ways for human aggression to advance civilization rather than destroy it, will succeed over societies that attempt to deny human nature and, in the name of 'compassion', 'social justice' or 'egalitarianism' reinforce the most negative aspects of human nature. A society that meshes with human nature and, in particular, finds ways for the many negative aspects of that nature (e.g., envy, greed, desire for power, desire for wealth, aggression etc. etc.)to be sublimated in socially useful and/or harmless behavior--rather than attempting to crush or deny that they exist--will be a very powerful and successful society.

Progressives operate under an economic model that is more genetic as opposed to cognitive. They are still functioning with the herd mentality and have yet to embrace modern civilizization or individualism, preferring instead to function on an instictual, rather than a rational level. This is why they find capitalism and market economics so repugnant.

The economic primitivism that is unceasingly promoted by the political left is a remnant of the cave-dwelling days of mankind; an idyllic era of history to which the left desperately yearns to return. The word "Progressive" is thus a simple rhetorical manipulation to diguise the essential backwardness of the left's economc thinking.

Thus, even the most perfect and glib manifestation of neo-Marxism and postmodernism; as well as the ultimate incarnation of progressive therapeutic sensibility cannot hope to escape from reality.

Human nature is what it is. This is not tragic, it is simple truth. The biological fantasies of the utopians; and the delusional fantasies of Marxist, communists and socialists and all their heirs, have lead to incalculable levels of human suffering all over the globe, as the proponents of these theories have tried to force humans to some "ideal" state. All these systems have failed the real-world tests in the last century; and all current versions of these ideologies will also eventually fail and fade away.

Sigmund could have taught Karl that simple truth--but Karl was never searching for truth as much as he was searching for power over--not understanding of--the minds of men.