Tuesday, June 30, 2009


Protein Wisdom discusses the unbelievable case of Swedish parents who are going to raise their child "genderless" so as to give him/her/it a "choice" what sex he/she/it wants to be at some future date:
Anonymous Swedish parents decide to raise their child genderless, or well, until the young thing decides for itself
A couple of Swedish parents have stirred up debate in the country by refusing to reveal whether their two-and-a-half-year-old child is a boy or a girl. [...]
In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.
“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It’s cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

Oh, more or less cruel then having unmarried parents? (I’m assuming here because the article studiously avoids giving the marital status of “the couple”.)

Unsurprising applause from Vagina Warriors
Some places, school districts, neighborhoods, relatives, co-parents, might make this choice a lot more difficult, fraught, or even dangerous. But part of why it’s so difficult, and turns into such a controversial choice, is that there are so few people raising their kids with freedom of gender.

Because, ya know, gender is just something you slip into each day like a pair of Levi jeans — the stonewashed 501’s or midrise 553’s?

Freedom of gender?? Freedom from the oppressive bonds of... reality is what they desire.

This is probably one of the best examples of the kind of biological fantasies generated by the so-called 'progressive' and 'reality-based' intellects of the left. Yesterday I talked about how the face of evil constantly renews itself ; however, the ultimate goal remains the same: it is anti-mind, anti-life, and anti-reality.

The parents who wish to deny the biological reality of their child are no different than all those who wish to deny reality in order to proudly disply their leftist credentials. They are no different from any other "selfless" sociopath who desires control over others; except that their particular brand of malignant narcissism couches its oppression of others in terms like "social justice" and "choice"--but it is tyranny nonetheless.

Is it any wonder then that, unlike the capitalist system they abhor, where basic human nature--both the good and the bad parts--is harnessed and made socially useful, the ideologically-motivated paents described above (and all the reality-denying morons of the left) intend to stamp out or ignore any aspect of human nature they don't happen to like, or which is inconvenient to their ideology.

Someone should tell them it has been tried many times before, and by much smarter tyrants than the current crop of ideologues will ever be. It won't work. It cannot work. It has NEVER worked.

But they will keep trying. Because both their narcissism and their psychological denial are without bounds.


It all reminds me of this scene from The Life of Brian where
Art imitates Life:

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Monday, June 29, 2009


Wretchard has a post up that explores the evolution of George Orwell's understanding of tyranny:
Where once he imagined that totalitarianism consisted of an enumerable number of fascists who would all disappear if we shot one each, he suddenly saw that totalitarianism was a face that haunted every human undertaking. Fleeting, shifting, but indisputably present...

The ability to recognize the face of tyranny is a fragile skill which cannot really be passed on, except as a critical attitude. As the twentieth century recedes into the past, a kind of antiquity has descended over the prophets of the past, who speak to us now only through old, cloth-covered books from second-hand bookshops or lying in corners at garage sales or lending libraries. Even 1984 is set in a time so long ago that it can only be portrayed in film as steampunk. We can no longer imagine “a boot in a human face forever” in a world where the Croc sandal may be the preferred footwear of militants. ‘A Croc sandal stamping on a human face forever?’ Who could credit such a tyranny, even if it were true? But the face of evil ever renews itself. When Moses returned from Mount Sinai he discovered that it had taken a new shape....

From our own jewelry and by our own hands we often forge the chains that bind us.

Read it all, of course and watch the videos.

Then consider this article which proposes that the events in Iran signal the beginning of the end of Islam:
Much as the hammers that leveled the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the end of the Cold War, so might the protests rocking Iran signal the death of radical Islam and the challenges it poses to the West.

No, that doesn't mean we'll be removing the metal detectors from our airports anytime soon. Al-Qaeda and its ilk, even diminished in strength, will retain the ability to stage terrorist strikes. But the danger brought home on Sept. 11, 2001, was always greater than the possibility of murderous attacks. It was the threat that a hostile ideology might come to dominate large swaths of the Muslim world.

Not all versions of this ideology -- variously called Islamism or radical Islam -- are violent. But at the core of even the peaceful ones, such as that espoused by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, is the idea that the Islamic world has been victimized by the West and must defend itself. Even before the United States invaded Iraq, stoking rage, polls in Muslim countries revealed support for Osama bin Laden and for al-Qaeda's aims, if not its methods. If such thinking were to triumph in major Muslim countries beyond Iran -- say, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- violent extremists would command vast new stores of personnel, explosives and funds.

This is precisely the nightmare scenario that is now receding. Even if the Iranian regime succeeds in suppressing the protests and imposes the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by force of bullets, mass arrests and hired thugs, it will have forfeited its legitimacy, which has always rested on an element of consent as well as coercion. Most Iranians revered Ayatollah Khomeini, but when his successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, declared the election results settled, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets, deriding his anointed candidate with chants of "Death to the dictator!"

Even if Muravchik's optimism about the demise of Islam is on the money, there is no reason to expect that the face of evil will be more than briefly deterred from his long-range objective, which is to enslave the human mind, and by doing so to to destroy humanity and all evidence of human accomplishment.

But if you look carefully at history, you can begin to see how seemlessly evil moves--or cycles--through the human world, it's face ever renewed and altered just enough to make it seems like you have never met him before. Evil's smile is genuine and his intentions always seem so benign--or at least the words that he uses to describe his intention. He says does what he does for your own good ; but coincidently, your enslavement happens to enrich him and give him pleasure.


You can perhaps begin to guess what new form it will take next and what kind of face it will adopt; since it haunts every human undertaking, after all....

But it should be reasonably clear that the most malignant evil always starts out being about some kind of 'hope and change'.

Saturday, June 27, 2009


I think the person in the above cartoon just read this article:
The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

Betsy Newmark wonders, "Why would American politicians want to ignore research that shows the deleterious effect of such policies on employment and follow Spain's path? Is the self-righteous effort more important than the actual results?"

Why? Because that's exactly how malignantly selfless narcissists operate.

And when the economic situation worsens, they will blame everyone else for their malignant incompetence, then shrug it off with a few, "But....we meant well! It's not our fault!"--and call for more regulation, more taxation, and more control.

UPDATE: Good Lord. Pelosi et al are a bunch of lunatics.

Friday, June 26, 2009


I made the mistake of glancing at the news last night and found it to contain the most all-around depressing bunch of stories imaginable; and in almost every sphere--national news, international news, social & entertainment news, political news, etc. etc.

So, I consciously decided to channel Scarlet O'Hara and engage in a bit of traditional psychological denial that is tried and true: since I am on vacation, I won't think about all that today, I'll think about thattomorrow next week.... (see how easy it is to close your eyes and ignore all the terribly unpleasant realities out there?)

We're up in San Luis Obispo at the moment, but will be heading to Fresno later today to visit more family and check out Fresno State. Here is a picture the Boo with a younger cousin at Avila Beach were we spent part of the day yesterday:

Wednesday, June 24, 2009


The latest on the "hot dog" diplomacy promoted by the hot dog-in-Chief:
From a State Department briefing yesterday:

QUESTION: This isn’t a frivolous question, really. Do you think it’s still appropriate to have Iranians come to these July 4th parties under the circumstances? I mean, is there any thought being given to like, rescinding invitations?

MR. KELLY: No, there’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats.

QUESTION: It’s appropriate to have a social dialogue with them if they come?

MR. KELLY: Well, we have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran, and we tried many years of isolation and we’re pursuing a different path now.

QUESTION: Have they said yes?

QUESTION: The President keeps saying that —

MR. KELLY: I don’t know, Arshad.

Putting aside that the Iranian regime is just not that into Obama reaching out begging them to like him, the moral aspects of Obama's suck up to the Mullahs should be front and center.

America, are you proud of this behavior?

Are you proud to be hosting a bunch of murderous, lying thugs on our national holiday of freedom and liberty? Are you proud of Obama's simpering, fawning behavior when it comes to the Iranian "Supreme" Leader? Maybe all we needed to do with Saddam was to invite him for coffee and donuts at the White House to seduce him into change his genocidal ways?

Lefties are all in a snit about the hypocrisy of Ensign's sex scandal because he dared to champion family values while he was having an extramarital affair.... I don't deny his hypocrisy on the issue, but frankly, I don't care much about it either.

Ensign sold out his own personal values and is rightly being taken to task for it.

OTOH, isn't it hypocrisy to the ultimate degree to be the President of a country that prides itself on the values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ,to have intercourse with representatives of a regime that stands for the opposite???

That is selling out an entire country's values--big time.

Not only is Obama's behavior an example of breathtaking immorality by someone who supposedly champions America; but the meta-hypocrisy of all the postmodern demagogues of the left is mind-boggling. They are all desperate to find something they can use for their campaigns of personal destruction directed against any and all Republicans(did you know it's "bizarre" to go hiking alone--which is only one of many leftist speculations about Governor Sanford; but perfectly normal and laudable to angrily accuse the CIA of lying to Congress to CYA and without any evidence to support it?); but unconcernedly shrug off the massive hypocrisy of major Democrats (like Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Jefferson, and the saintly Obama to name just a few) because they are all completely shameless about their behavior.

Like a teenage girl shamelessly pursuing a boy who could care less about her--or, for that matter, like any primitive shame culture--the left continually pretends that if they don't notice reality, it will go away.

How do people like Obama, Pelosi, Dodd and Frank et al get away with their hypocrisies? When I said 'shameless', I was being precise:
The purpose of guilt is to stop behavior that violates a self, family or societal standard. Guilt keeps score on excesses or deficits of behavior deemed undesirable and is expressed in regret and remorse.

Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.

Most psychological theorists (Erikson, Freud, Kohut) see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience....

In thinking about how the concepts of guilt and shame apply in a culture (NOTE: e.g., the culture of the political left, whose members never admit to wrongdoing--no matter how blatant or obvious it is; vs the culture of the right, whose members acknowledge it and take their lumps accordingly) it is helpful to refer to a seminal work that was originally published by Benedict in 1946, where she discussed the collectivist culture of Japan during WWII and distinguished it from American culture. Japan had a “shame culture”, while the U.S. and most of the West subscribe to a “guilt culture”. Each type of culture has its own set of rules with regard to wrong-doing and they are determined by the beliefs of the individual and other people regarding guilt, and summarized in the two matrix tables below:

In both cultures there is no problem if both parties believe that the individual is NOT GUILTY. If both parties believe that the individual is GUILTY, again there is agreement and in that case the guilt is punished.

The difference in the two societies lies in the other two boxes in the matrix (in red).

In a guilt culture, when an individual believes he is NOT GUILTY, he will defend his innocence aggressively despite the fact that others believe he is guilty. In this case, the individual self is strong and able to maintain an independent judgement even if every other person is convinced of his guilt. The self is able to stand alone and fight for truth, secure in the knowledge that the individual is innocent.

The guilt culture is typically and primarily concerned with truth, justice, and the preservation of individual rights. As we noted earlier, the emotion of guilt is what keeps a person from behavior that goes against his/her own code of conduct as well as the culture’s. Excessive guilt can, of course, also be pathological. I am solely referring to a psychologically healthy appreciation of guilt.

In contrast, in a typical shame culture (e.g., Japan as discussed by Benedict; or the present focus of this discussion: Arab/Islamic culture) what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on behavior than even what the individual believes. As noted by Gutman in his writings, the desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This desire has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

Additionally, it may be impossible for an individual to even admit to himself that he is guilty (even when he is) particularly when everyone else considers him to be guilty because of the shame involved. As long as others remain convinced he is innocent, the individuals does not experience either guilt or shame. A great deal of effort therefore goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty).

In general, it has been noted that the shame culture works best within a collectivist society, although it can exist in pockets even within a predominant guilt culture.

Now you understand why the left hysterically and loudly condemns Republicans like Ensign; but is absolutely silent (and deaf) when it comes to the wrongdoings of Democrats and those on the left (who you may notice rarely resign or even admit to any guilt or shame).

Obama shamelessly throws himself at the Iranian Mullahs who want nothing to do with him, and betrays his country's values without a lick of remorse; but we're supposed to get worked up about Senator Ensign having an affair with a staffer?

Ensign at least, had enough integrity left to acknowledge his moral transgression and act accordingly. Obama and the other moral relativists of the left understand that being a postmodern zombie means never having to say you're sorry.


[Cartoons by Glenn McCoy]

Tuesday, June 23, 2009


It's audacity...it's hope...it's grandiose and utterly narcissistic.
The only reference to democracy concerns apologizing for the US' role in overthrowing a "democratically elected" government. Other references include multiple affirmations that Iran's "leaders" are in fact its leaders, pledges of "mutual respect," and a commitment to working with Iran's "leaders" without "preconditions" of any sort. Preconditions that a democratically-minded president might insist upon, like reform of the corrupt, fixed system and a system of actual representative government.

Everything Obama said about Iran actually flattered and legitimized its "leaders," as he termed them. And yet, we are supposed to believe, he actually inspired the protests.

But he and his staff are miffed that he's not getting proper credit for inspiring the Iranian protests by his lame rhetoric. As Peter Kiranov notes: "But privately Obama administration officials are crediting Obama's setting of his bedside alarm clock last night for the sun rising this morning. . . ."

I wonder on a daily basis why so many people in this country and around the world are unable to see through this second-rater who is desperate to achieve godhood and be all things to all people.


Veronique de Rugy makes an excellent point about the 'Recovery's Missing Ingredient: New Jobs':
Remember how the Obama adminstration promised that the $800 billion stimulus bill would create thousands of jobs? Well, according to this morning's Washington Post, it hasn't happened yet:
"Despite signs that the recession gripping the nation's economy may be easing, the unemployment rate is projected to continue rising for another year before topping out in double digits, a prospect that threatens to slow growth, increase poverty and further complicate the Obama administration's message of optimism about the economic outlook."

And the Post notes:
Continuing high unemployment rates would undercut the fundamental argument behind much of that spending: the promise that it will create new jobs and improve the prospects of working Americans, which Obama has called the ultimate measure of a healthy economy.

Yes, one would hope that most Americans — and professional economists — who supported stimulus spending as a way to get the economy going again would actually wonder whether they may have been wrong. Maybe, there is something to be said about the theory that government cannot create jobs.

However, I am thinking that what is more likely to happen is that there will be a strong call for more government spending. If it's not working, it's just that we haven't spent enough.

Read the whole thing here (emphasis mine).

Will they wonder if they are wrong??

Don't be silly. We're dealing with malignant narcissists of the selfless variety. They're the most dangerous political animals you could ever have the misfortune to encounter.

Monday, June 22, 2009



Well, my daughter and I have finished looking at colleges and visiting family in San Diego and are headed up to Los Angeles. Here are a few pictures of what we've been doing:

San Diego Padres vs. Oakland, taken from my brother's box:

An overcast day at Del Mar beach (but wonderful nonetheless!):

On the summit of the hiking trail at Torrey Pines, the Boo strikes a pose:

Sunday, June 21, 2009


Obama, looking for a clue on what to do about Iran:

The man is just hopeless when the prearranged script doesn't go as planned....

Seems folks are beginning to figure out what a Zero we have for a leader (if that's the word)--both here in the U.S.

and abroad:
This may help clarify matters for those who wonder what the Iranian dissidents want. I posted it on my blog a while ago. As I said on my blog, we are all getting various things whose authenticity requires skepticism. I'm confident of the channel—a person who is directly in contact with Mousavi and his people—but I can't swear this has been approved by Mousavi himself. Still, I do think it reflects the state of mind of his people. Notice that it doesn't bear his signature; it's from "the office."

From the Office of Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi

To the President of the USA, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:

Dear Mr. President,

In the name of the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement "Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind,” we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.

It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for Mr. Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.

Your statement misled the people of the world. It was no doubt inspired by your hope for dialogue with this regime, but you cannot possibly believe in promises from a regime that lies to its own people and then kills them when they demand the promises be kept.

By such statements, your administration and you discourage the Iranian people, who believe and trust in the values of democracy and freedom. We are pleased to see that you have condemned the regime’s murderous violence, and we look forward to stronger support for the rightful struggle of the Iranian people against the actions of a regime that is your enemy as well as ours.

Saturday, June 20, 2009


The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop. - P.J. O'Rourke

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Friday, June 19, 2009


Jim Gehraghty writes:
We haven’t lived in President Obama’s America for long, but already we are witnessing a strange new phenomenon: Previously apolitical figures and organizations find themselves demonized, and then forgotten, with the speed, fury, and transience of a summer thunderstorm.

For most of his tenure at CNBC, Jim Cramer was a fairly apolitical creature. First and foremost a stock-market guru, Cramer stated that he eventually split from his partnered show with NRO’s Larry Kudlow “because politics is not my inclination . . . I just really don’t care for [the topic].” But Obama’s early moves spooked the market, and Cramer — who strongly and vocally supported Obama in last year’s campaign — called out Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, lamenting the “invisible Treasury secretary” and “the most, greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president.”

Suddenly, Jim Cramer became a much bigger figure. Suddenly, he became a regular butt of jokes on The Daily Show, and host Jon Stewart ripped into Cramer during their “interview.” Suddenly, the New York Times felt compelled to spotlight Cramer’s bad stock predictions and declare, “his personal brand has taken a beating in the last month.” Media Matters felt the need to establish a new site, “Financial Media Matters.”

In recent months, the market has improved some, and Cramer has been less vocal in his criticism of Obama — and, strangely enough, he’s no longer considered so worthy of mockery by the usual suspects. The host retains his same manic, relentless, over-the-top style; but for some reason, when he stopped criticizing the president, major media voices lost interest in ridiculing him.

The latest entity to be subjected to this Two-Minute Hate is the American Medical Association (AMA).

Geraghty goes on to document how, the minute the AMA dared to criticize the President's health plans, the demonization machine of the left cranked up its operations:
But it was too late; the group’s apostasy was already a matter of public record. Suddenly, Media Matters felt the need to refute the notion that the AMA’s position might be that of America’s doctors, insisting that the group “speaks for less than one-third of doctors.” Coverage of the AMA’s announcement often implied that doctors don’t join because they disagree with the association’s stances, when in fact the trend in the profession has been for doctors to join organizations based on their medical specialty.

At the Daily Kos site, contributors argue that “the AMA is just as much a relic of a by-gone era as the little black bag.” One declared that the time has come “to ask our own doctors to stand firm against the AMA or revoke their membership with AMA due to their opposition to a strong, robust Medicare-like public option.” Another post carried the none-too-subtle headline “All Together Now: ‘Screw You, AMA!’”

By way of comparison, there was only one Kos diary that mentioned the AMA in March, and none in April; but since the recent health-care announcement, there have been 18. A switch has been flipped; the organization is now worth paying attention to and criticizing.

This is the way things are done in Obamaworld. It has always been thus, and Obama's short and unremarkable political career even prior to his amazing presidential run was characterized by the same sort of hostility and focused attention from the media toward the Magical One's opponents. Hope and Change the Chicago Way!

The lesson was clear long before Obama had the enormous power of the Executive Branch to do his dirty work. Like Islam's Mohammed, no criticism of the Democrat's messiah is permitted. To criticize the One is political apostasy and punishable by political and personal destruction.

Writing in the American Spectator in February about Obama's 'enemies list', Mark Hyman noted:
The heavy-handed actions against Obama critics and opponents that occurred before he had government institutions firmly under his control should have had public interest watchdog groups up in arms. Because so many of such groups are ideologically aligned with Obama may explain why there was not even a peep. Conservative and balanced news outlets have the disturbing habit of holding accountable liberal public interest organizations that engage in dishonest or deceptive practices that the major news organizations just so happen to overlook.

How soon and how far the Obama Administration will extend its attacks against its critics and the political opposition may become evident in the days ahead. Spared any serious scrutiny by most news outlets during his very brief career in public office, Barack Obama has displayed an exceptionally thin skin when he has come under a microscope or when he has suffered political and public relations setbacks. (read it all)

Back in October of 2008, Andy McCarthy sounded the alarm on candidate Obama's assault on the First Amendment:
I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent.

We London conferees were fretting over speech codes, “hate speech” restrictions, “Islamophobia” provisions, and “libel tourism” — the use of less journalist-friendly defamation laws in foreign jurisdictions to eviscerate our First Amendment freedom to report, for example, on the nexus between ostensible Islamic charity and the funding of terrorist operations.

All the while, in St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, were threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”

The chill wind was bracing. The Taliban could not better rig matters. The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned.

To the extent that a person's behavior is mostly motivated by perceived insults to their self--i.e., their narcissistic core; then the "insult" will usually prompt a typical display of narcissistic rage directed toward the unfortunate individual who threatens them.

Such rage responses are invariably destructive, mean, and petty. Additionally, these rages are generally not beneficial to society-at-large (in fact, such actions often have strong sociopathic or antisocial elements to them) , although the person in the throes of narcissistic rage will often convince themselves that they are behaving perfectly appropriately and even for "the good" of others. They "stand above the fray", making it clear to all that their behavior is because they are superior beings. Typically, they get their goons to do the dirty work of silencing their critics.

This fantasy of sublime superiority is the origin of "sociopathic selfishness and "sociopathic selflessness" I have discussed elsewhere; and it is the pathology of all tyrants and dictators.

Far too often, narcissistically flawed individuals are hopelessly attracted by the grandiose opportunities of the political arena (as well as the Hollywood arena) like moths to a flame. Their sense of self is starkly invested in the desire for power over others (always, of course, "for their own good") , constant admiration and adulation and grandiose ambitions. This makes them remarkably adept at the politics of personal destruction--particularly when you are a devoted fan of the teachings of a radical organizer whose philosophy demanded that you: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

For the narcissist it is always a zero-sum game he or she plays with other individuals. From the perspective of the narcissist, if someone else "wins", the narcissist "loses". It cannot be otherwise, since on some level they know that their own talent and skills are way overblown. Hence, they cannot hope to "win" based on those talents alone. Thus, the behavior of the classic narcissist is mostly directed toward making others lose so they can win by default. To that end, there is no behavior or tactic that is considered out -of-bounds or over-the-top.

The state of political discourse in this country was bad enough, with the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns; but Barack Obama has taken this to a higher plane of being-- and destroying.

Politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; but it is the people of no integrity and no values who are obsessively attracted to the field and are triumphant--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal "perfection" and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; or even based on the character (we don't need no stinkin' character in our politicians); instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. The less they know of that character, the better!

And, despite all efforts to hide the truth about Obama's weak and unprincipled character, there was still plenty of information available to be able to see that the emperor messiah had no clothes.

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians like both Hillary and Bill can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their public care to project onto them.

This is not the kind of person who can face real threats in the real world very effectively because this is not the kind of person who can effectively deal with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the polls indicate they should?.

Hillary Clinton, for example, did not get where she is today by being a person of integrity, honesty and courage--she got there by riding on the coattails of her charismatic husband; and by shrewdly altering her opinions to accommodate the prevailing political winds. And, oh yes, by ruthlessly destroying whoever got in her way. And even her base is able to recognize this about her, although she is extremely careful never to dirty her own hands. Like the Hamas and Hezbollah gunmen who shield themselves with innocent women and children, Hillary and her spouse have always had a ready supply of useful fall-guys (recall Vince Foster's suicide or Sandy Berger's recent archival exploits, for example) to take responsibility for their misdeeds.

In fact, the Clinton's narcissism became way to overexposed and obvious. In reality, they paved the way for a candidate like Obama, who initially was so attractive because the same leftists who once adored Hillary began to find her to be too obvious and coarse. Instead, they dropped her and swung over to the unknown, tabula rasa candidate on whom they are able to project their own fantasies without any intrusion by harsh reality.

The antics of the Clintons during their run in power seem almost benign and innocent by comparison.

We have a real demagogue in office now.

The best leaders are not obsessed with themselves; with polls; or with accumulating power by pandering to all sides. Those leaders may, in truth, have many other personal flaws--but not particularly of the dangerously malignant narcissistic variety. Whatever those flaws (and we all possess them), they are characterologically able to be more concerned about dealing with external reality; rather than in preserving a distorted and fragile internal one. Avenging petty slights and insults is not a high priority to a psychologically healthy person. Those healthy individuals are far more likely to direct their psychological energy toward dealing with real-world geopolitical threats that endanger both their country and the people they have the responsibility to protect; rather than using that country or the power of their office to counter threats to their endangered self and act on their grandiose fantasies about themselves.

The latter is the same psychological pathology that is rampant among dictators and dictator wannabes of all stripes. Their concern about others in their group/nation is purely of the “l’├ętat c’est moi” variety. Look at Saddam's behavioral legacy. Observe the recent behaviors of Ahmadinejad or Chavez or Kim Jong Il -- or any of the other despots and thugs that somehow claw their way up to the top of the food chain in their respective countries.

That the needs of the nation, or the people they serve, might be different from their own; or that doing the right thing is often different from doing the popular thing, are foreign and dangerous concepts. The only reality they know--or care about--is the one inside themselves.

Welcome to Obamaworld.

Thursday, June 18, 2009


My daughter and I are headed out to California to tour some colleges and visit family. Blogging will be light and intermittant until July 1, but I'll try to put up a few posts, so check back!

I have to admit, it will be nice to be away from the insanity for a while (unless you consider the craziness going on in California these days....).

At any rate, we will be traveling most of the day....So, consider this an open thread and discuss whatever is on your mind.

I'm stealing this cartoon from Siggy's site:

Wednesday, June 17, 2009


To paraphrase the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, and apply his insight to the situation in Iran:

He's is not in denial, he's just selective about the reality he accepts....

Example #1:

[Cartoons by Nate Beeler ]

Example #2:

[Cartoons by Eric Allie ]

Tuesday, June 16, 2009


I think we are going to see, incrementally, perhaps, a rise in the ratings of former president Bush. Iraq is proving to be amazingly resilient, not only functioning as a democracy, but by withstanding the best efforts of Iran to kill it off, proving destabilizing to Iran itself.

By removing Saddam, and trying to isolate Ahmadinejad and appeal to the Iranian people, Bush at least tried to prep the landscape for democratic change.

In contrast, Obama's past siren calls to quit Iraq, the "optional" war, his snubbing of Maliki, his ahistorical efforts to charm the Islamic Street, and apologies to theocratic Iran while lavishing attention on Ahmadinejad put him on the wrong side of history.

If Obama were wise, he would get out pronto a statement condemning the anti-democratic violence of the Iranian government, and suggesting it follow the Iraq example of free and internationally inspected elections.

At some point, one should see that moral equivalence and multicultural non-judgementalism, however catchy for the moment, are as stupid as they are amoral, and will put the U.S in a foolish, "make it up as we go along" position.

Can we at least see an end to all the past Iranian fluff offered by Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and NY Times columnists as over the years they praised what they claimed was a good start for democracy?

How did it come to pass that the Left thought cozying up to a brutal thug like Ahmadinejad was proof of statecraft superior to Bush's tough position that he was a nut and at odds with the aspirations for freedom of the Iranian people?

Meanwhile, Tigerhawk quotes this grudging concession to history by Thomas Friedman:
There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades. “Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous,” said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. “It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were.”

He then goes on to comment:
Leaving aside the accusation that Bush was disingenuous -- I suspect history will reveal that to be substantially untrue, which may have been part of the problem -- the war for Bush's foreign policy legacy will be particularly protracted and contentious. The historiography will not resolve itself, or even stabilize, until two conditions obtain. First, we need to see what happens in the Arab Middle East. If in a generation or two the clown kings and tinpot dictators have given way to more pluralistic governments, even if not Western or secular in form, then it will be possible and perhaps even intellectually honest to draw a line from the earthquakes of the Bush years, including particularly the frankly revolutionary idea that
[f]or 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East — and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.

So, how did it come to pass that the left and its messiah believe cozying up to repressive regimes and brutal thugs is a good thing?

Pervasive denial, distortion, displacement, projection and paranoia on the part of the left.

See pretty much everything I've posted over the last 4 years.

Monday, June 15, 2009


In a very interesting article at the WSJ, Peter Berkowitz suggests a revolutionary idea: "If they can find time for feminist theory, they can find time for Edmund Burke." He correctly notes:
There is no legitimate intellectual justification for this omission. The exclusion of conservative ideas from the curriculum contravenes the requirements of a liberal education and an objective study of political science....

While ignoring conservatism, the political theory subfield regularly offers specialized courses in liberal theory and democratic theory; African-American political thought and feminist political theory; the social theory of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and the neo-Marxist Frankfurt school; and numerous versions of postmodern political theory.

Dennis Praeger in an article from 2007 wrote:
Students at most universities are almost brainwashed into being leftist -- and the way they are taught to disagree with their political opponents is by using ad hominem attacks. Conservatives are described over and over as mean-spirited, war-loving, greedy, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, sexist, intolerant and oblivious to human suffering.

Such ad hominem labels are the left's primary rhetorical weapons. So when leftist students are actually confronted with even one articulate conservative, many enter a world of cognitive dissonance. That is one reason why universities rarely invite conservatives to speak: they might change some students' minds.

Which brings me to the definition of the term "fascism". I am going to quote Jonah Goldberg, because I think his book Liberal Fascism is an absolute must-read to understand how the term "fascism" has become distorted by the political left. In fact, we see this distortion on a daily basis in the news today, because the left are particularly anxious to make sure that the use of the term is associated only with the political right. Goldberg's book is actually the countermeasure for this leftist ploy, because it, "rectif(ies) the misunderstanding of what fascism is and to highlight(s) the deep historical, ideological and emotional ties between progressivism (now called liberalism) and fascism:"
Definitions vary wildly among academics. I would argue that’s because they can’t bring themselves to place it squarely on the left side of the ideological spectrum and part of the “revolutionary tradition” starting with the French Revolution. So they come up with these sometimes goofy or unwieldy definitions. Some define it by what it isn’t. Other are simply descriptive, focusing on the “anatomy” of one fascist regime or regimes. One problem with that approach is that it is almost impossible to come up with a description of fascism that would exclude, say, Fidel Castro’s Cuba or Joseph Stalin’s Russia. That’s a dilemma when fascism is supposed to the diametrical opposite of Communism. Many simply ignore the problem and keep moving. Gilbert Allardyce, a prominent scholar of fascism, put it well when he said “Put simply, we have agreed to use the word without agreeing how to define it.”

I’ve got a long definition in the book, but a short one would be an instinctual religious impulse - usually gussied-up as a secular or modern ideology - that seeks to impose uniformity in thought and action throughout the entire society. All oars in a fascistic society must pull together. The personal is political because everything goes together. Political correctness is one name we give to such efforts in civil society.

Political correctness and its accompanying identity politics, with race and resentment are on display 24/7, particularly in the Age of Obama.

It wasn't that long ago that a firestorm of criticism erupted because of the use of the term Islamo-fascism. This criticism was led by leading news organizations in the U.S. , in spite of the obvious fact that the word precisely describes the threat of the religious fanatics of Islam.

Not surprisingly, the association of their religion with the term 'fascism' has angered many in the Muslim world, who see it as branding all Muslims as fascists.

"I think it's despicable," Middle East expert Juan Cole said sometime back. "Linking Islam… with a pejorative term such as fascism is extremely unfair. In fact, it is a form of racism."

Racist is, of course, a non-pejoritive term used to describe anyone who happens to disagree with Professor Cole and the leftist fascists whose only goal is the uniformity of thought and behavior in America. Calling others racist or sexist is trademark tactic to end the discussion.

I suggest my readers check the definition of 'racism'; but last time I looked, a religion was not synonymous with a race. Further, not connecting Islam with the likes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Ahmadinejad--and the Mullahs, and all the other jihadist thugs out there is a form of idiocy--not to mention it would probably offend their delicate sensibilities (and Cole wouldn't want to do that!). They see themselves and their millions of followers as the true believers of the religion.

Not linking the political aspirations of these Islamic fanatics to fascism is clearly a form of psychological denial. And not understanding how today's leftist ideology is all about fascism, is willful blindness.

Which brings me back to some fundamental questions that must be answered if America and Western Civilization are to withstand the onslaught of both leftist and Islamic fascism.

The questions are:
  • Why has the political left abandoned all pretense of the liberal tradition?

  • Why is it that they say one thing and do the opposite?

  • Why have they been able to delude themselves into thinking that they are "reality-based" and "progressive"?

  • Why have they struggled so fiercely and angrily to impede and undermine this country's ability to fight Islamofascism, while at the same time enabling the terrorists and their plotting?

  • For all these questions, there is one unifying answer: Postmodernism.

    Reality, truth, reason, consistency, integrity and almost all the values of the Enlightenment that I discussed in this post have been abandoned--cheaply surrendered--by the intellectual elites of Western Civilization. (also discussed here , here and here for the interested)

    Victor Davis Hanson once made this observation aabout the Europeans:
    Europe boldly produces films about assassinating an American president, and routinely disparages the Church that gave the world the Sermon of the Mount, but it simply won’t stand up for an artist, a well-meaning Pope, or a ranting filmmaker when the mob closes in. The Europe that believes in everything turns out to believe in nothing.

    And his comments are descriptive as well of the political left, whose members long ago embraced postmodernism; and whose ideology is inculcated and force fed to several generations now in the very classrooms that Berkowitz writes about. Indeed, so pervasive is this leftist religion, that it has percolated down into the K-12 curriculum. And, in the Age of Obama, this fascist conformity of thought and behavior is proceeding apace.

    What the left is teaching our children is to believe in nothing.

    The left has essentially reached a philosophical endpoint in the postmodern intellectual journey they began early in the last century, and have arrived at the core nihilism that animates their entire belief system.

    Once reason has been rejected; and reason and reality set aside as a basis for human actions, all that is left are the intense feelings that are the twinkling stars of the postmodern emotional universe.

    Is it any wonder that the same people who aggressively champion gay rights one minute, will--when it is expedient--throw gays under the bus to score political points? But gays shouldn't feel slighted; they may not have recognized the truth yet, but their candidate is the perfect postmodern demagogue poster boy. He promises every group the moon and feels not the slightest twinge of remorse at the neverending political contradictions he utters.

    The question is, why should we expect anyone on the left--least of all their leaders--to behave reasonably? Reason plays no part in their ideology or thought processes, such as they are. Forgetting about the many Democrats who are as corrupt as any Republican they happen to be demonizing at the moment ( excellently documented by SC&A, by the way) is not simply a benign lapse on the part of the left; it is a perfectly acceptable tactic in a conflict where the only goal is power at any price. Full speed ahead; truth be damned.

    Or just consider this popular smear tactic at Think Progress Delusionally, used to discredit Norman Podhoretz. Someone should probably mention to these progressive champions of truth and logic that making an historical analogy is not the same thing as an ad hominem attack.

    Only people without a lick of insight, self-awareness, honesty, or even a rudimentary sense of humor could ignore or forget the rampant Bush=Hitler meme that dominated their side of the political spectrum for eight long years; and engage in the criticism of Podhoretz in such a self-righteous and ridiculous post. But, they don't need no stinkin' facts: they're from the left, and anyone who disagrees with them threatens their utopia of uniformity.

    The breathtaking hypocrisy simply boggles the mind; but it is all part and parcel of the postmodern rhetoric of leftist nothings.

    Postmodernism is nothing more than intellectual nihilism dressed up in academic robes. If someone ever wrote a history of psychological denial, the philosophy of postmodernism, which burst on the human scene about half a century ago, would undoubtedly have a special place.

    The use of postmodern rhetoric is usually a desperate attempt on the part of the person in denial when he recognizes that logic, reason, and reality actually argue against his beliefs or purposes. This strategy can often take the form of redefining or distorting language and ideas so that they conform to ones pre-existing attitudes and emotions.

    EXAMPLE: "Everything is relative anyway."

    EXAMPLE: "Objective truth does not exist"

    EXAMPLE: "Truth is relative and my feelings are just as important as your facts."

    EXAMPLE: "My reality is just as significant as yours"

    EXAMPLE: "Reality is an illusion."

    In the end, they all serve to facilitate today's left in their unwillingness to confront the evil that threatens civilization. Axis of Evil? Don't make them laugh. They are the anchors of the Axis of See-No-Evil. They would like you to believe that the only evil confronting the world is George Bush and have no problem equating George Bush and conservatives with fascism. But connecting Islam with fascism? Connecting their polices to fascism? That's really, really offensive. And mean. And, of course, racist.

    Projection, anyone?

    UPDATE: Gateway Pundit is correct: this is absolutely outrageous and completely insane. The left and their catamite media suck-ups are so heavily into denial and projection in the age of Obama, that they live in an alternate, fantasy universe. What did I just say above? They would like you to believe that the only evil confronting the world is George Bush and have no problem equating George Bush and conservatives with fascism. The problem is that they are the ones promoting a fascist ideology that demands complete uniformity of thought and behavior--it's no wonder that the idea of Islamic sharia appeals to them so much.

    UPDATE II: Boy, the enviro-fascists must be really PISSED!

    Sunday, June 14, 2009


    Today, smokers. Tomorrow, fat people! And the day after tomorrow...? In addition to what we put into our mouths, what else can we expect our wonderful and omnicient government to regulate in coming days for our own good?

    Is there any bodily orifice that remains sacred? Or, is there any portion of our bodies and minds that Obama et al, don't think they have the right to control now that they are in power?

    Ideas welcome in the comments.

    Saturday, June 13, 2009


    A number of emailers have written wondering why I haven't commented on Obama's health care plans for America.

    Doug Ross highlights an ad/op-ed piece by Nicolas Kristof, part of the massive PR campaign in the Age of Obama to make socialized medicine palatable to the American public. Kristof calls people like me "scaremongers;" and defiantly says, "This time we won't scare." But he doesn't have to worry.

    I'm done.

    My entire professional life as a physician and psychiatrist I have been exceptionally vocal about the prospect of government medicine here in the US. I have given impassioned speeches (when I was younger); written essays in medical journals and elsewhere; and talked until I am blue in the face to anyone and everyone about the horrors of socialized medicine and government interference in the health care system of this country. Once it would have seemed impossible that I would ever want to quit medicine; to stop practicing psychiatry.

    I have watched with dismay as every year we have inched closer and closer to the Democrats and the left's goals; goals which I firmly believe will completely destroy American medicine. I have watched up close and personal the utter soul-destroying consequences to both patients and doctors alike, of the pervasive cultural collectivist and looter thinking in my specialty. Every time this madness is killed, it just doesn't stay dead. Like some kind of putrefying zombie, the left just keeps resurrecting it. Logic doesn't matter. Facts don't matter.

    Let's face it. To the zombies of the left, reality doesn't matter. With President Postmodern in office, aided and abetted by zombie hordes in Congress; why should I pretend anymore that it does?

    This time around, I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE. If that's what people want, so be it.

    I'm done. If Congress passes Obama's destructive zombie health plan in any form, I quit.

    I will simply not practice medicine anymore. I will take my psychiatry books and my years of experience and do something else. I used to wait tables when I was in college. It's an honest living and Obama isn't interested for the time being in nationalizing restaurants--yet.

    Let me be clear. I don't believe that people have a "right" to health care; because, what advocating such a "right" basically means is that you believe you have a "right" to my mind; you have a "right" to my professional competence; i.e., you have a "right" to enslave me.

    Having chosen to work primarily in the public sector most of my life, I have watched this entitlement and victimhood mentality grow to incredible proportions in parallel with number of laws, regulations, administrators, and oversight agencies. I have watched the decline of personal responsibility and the rise of endless demands and impossible clinical and psychosocial conundrums that I am expected to solve, even if my patient has no desire to change. I have been demoted to the near-mindless activity of pushing pills to the point that I understand why my collegues see every clinical situation as a biological malfunction--the old adage that says, to a hammer everything looks like a nail, comes to mind. Psychiatrists are the mental health profession's hammer; and drugs are the nail. And, the same powers that tell me to prescribe drugs, warn me against the evil of working too closely with any of the drug companies, for fear I might be corrupted, God forbid, by the dastardly profit motive.

    I have watched as the quality of care has inevitably deteriorated even as spending went up. I have watched the system abuse patients and doctors alike--to the point that the frustration level just keeps going up and is simply not worth it anymore.

    I quit my memberships in the AMA and APA some years back when I realized that they were not really in it to make things better for doctors or patients. Perhaps at one time they were real advocates for both, but now they are like most of those supposedly "capitalist" businesses--like AIG and all the others-- who willingly feed at the government trough and can't get enough of that yummy government pork. They sold themselves long ago--in both areas of clinical and research medicine-- in order to have a place at Big Government's table.

    So, that is my answer to the emails; and why I don't intend to write anything further on the subject. We will all see what happens when and if the zombies take over health care in this country and make it all like Medicare and Medicaid....and GM and Fannie Mae and etc. etc.

    I expect a Zombie Health Czar (Barney Frank would be perfect) will be appointed any day now. Someone who will have control over doctors' compensation and drug company profits. Someone who won't have to answer to the public who can control implementation of any aspect of the zombie plan that needs to bypass intelligent scrutiny.

    [Cartoons by Glenn Foden ]

    UPDATE: Can you imagine the over-the-top leftist hysteria and lunatic rantings about fascism if the Bush Administration had done something like this? Guess their biggest fear was that Bush would beat them to implementing a fascist state.

    Can't wait to see what exciting plans they have for Republican or conservative physicians in the new Obamatopia.

    UPDATE II: It just keeps getting worse and worse; more and more unbelievable. Now we know who the Obama Administration considers the real terrorists, don't we? How long before it's a criminal offense to oppose the One? As Andy McCarthy notes, "...pretty scary arrogance down there at the White House, no?"

    Friday, June 12, 2009


    Ace has noticed something that, for some strange and unfathomable reason, the mainstream media have overlooked:
    Obama: We Must be Vigilant Against Anti-Semetism, But No Way in Hell Could I Possibly Chastise My Former Spirtual Advisor: Vigilance begins in the home, dickbag.
    Barack Obama, Resident of the United States:
    "This outrageous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms. No American institution is more important to this effort than the Holocaust Museum, and no act of violence will diminish our determination to honor those who were lost by building a more peaceful and tolerant world."
    This is so obvious I hate saying it, but yeah: You think the media might notice this if the President whose spiritual advisor was making anti-semitic remarks even as he calls for "vigilance against anti-semitism" were a Republican?

    Now, ask yourself why this has not been a connection made in the MSM? Here's the answer: if the MSM were to mention Wright's hate speech in the same article as Obama's comments about anti-semitism, then several things would suddenly leap out at the reader:

    1. Obama sat passively for twenty years listing to this hate-monger in church; but now says, "We must be vigilant against anti-semitism." Somehow, in spite of his well-publicized visit to Buchenwald, you might begin to wonder about Obama's personal "vigilance" in this area.

    2. The attempts by the left to assert that the Holocaust Museum shooter was somehow one of those "right wing nuts" becomes mere wishful thinking and almost delusional:
    Weird, huh? What possible grievance could a Jew-hating 9/11 Truther who ranted about Bill O’Reilly and “neocons” have against a magazine owned by Rupert Murdoch and edited by Bill Kristol? Maybe he detected a leftward drift in the Standard’s editorial slant lately? You know how irascible those “right-wingers” can be, especially when they’re fed a steady diet of Fox News. Which, um, Von Brunn hated.

    The left may not have noticed this little fact (they are in denial about their pervasive racism, sexism etc. after all), but they OWN anti-semitism these days.

    From an article by Philip J. Spencer in Spiked:
    There are a number of ways in which much of the left now refuses to engage seriously with anti-Semitism but rather helps to legitimate it. The first takes the form of explaining anti-Semitism in a way that effectively justifies it. This occurs when, for example, suicide bombing (that is, the deliberate killing of Jewish civilians) is explained in a pseudo-materialist mode as simply a product of desperation. That many people have found themselves desperate without resorting to such actions and such hatred is ignored, as is the obvious fact that they are planned by people who are certainly anti-Semitic but not by any stretch of the imagination hopeless or without considerable material resources.

    The second form is collusion – the effective toleration of anti-Semitic language, chants and slogans on demonstrations against Israel. I say ‘effective’ because this is a repeated and growing phenomenon, known in advance. It does not require an occasional well-meaning reproof but the recognition that joint participation in, and organisation of, such demonstrations provides a forum for anti-Semites to express their hatred of Jews without fear or anxiety. (It is in this respect a direct reversal of the old socialist programme of ‘no platform for fascists’.)

    The third way in which the left helps to legitimise anti-Semitism, and this often accompanies the first two, has to do with the downplaying of evidence of anti-Semitism itself: the claim that anti-Semitic incidents are over-reported or misinterpreted and that, in any case, they are far less significant than other forms of hatred.

    How new is all this? Perhaps it is not quite as new as we might wish, especially if we think about the left’s response to Nazi anti-Semitism. There is a certain ‘conceit’ on the left (one I confess I shared myself for a long time) that they were the most principled, committed opponents of Nazi anti-Semitism. This is highly arguable. In Germany in the 1930s, many left-wing intellectuals took an entirely reductive view of Nazi anti-Semitism. As late as 1939, for example, Max Horkheimer claimed that what was really going on was that ‘the Jews are being supplanted as agents of circulation, for the modern economic structure eliminates the entire sphere of commerce’.

    In 1942 (just as the Final Solution was under way) Franz Neumann published his major study of Nazism in which he argued that they would ‘never allow a complete extermination of the Jews’. What the left did oppose was fascism, for which they had a much more sophisticated explanation, and which was a priority. For on the ground, too, mobilising against anti-Semitism as a central issue was repeatedly rejected - by both social democrats and communists. To raise this issue, leaders of both parties agreed, was pointless and counter-productive. It would not win support but would further isolate their militants. And there was more than a hidden suggestion that the Jews had somehow brought this upon themselves, that they had been too visible, too prominent, or worse.

    Ignorant efforts to equate what happened to the Jews during Nazi rule with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians may be thought about, to some extent, against this background of incomprehension and avoidance. It is true that what happened then remains hard to comprehend even today. The idea that the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews everywhere is hard to hold in the mind, as (even more) is the creation of extermination camps; factories designed not to produce goods or commodities but corpses and ashes, factories of death.

    But if there is little history of thinking seriously about anti-Semitism and confronting it directly when it was at its most dangerous, it may not be so surprising that there has been such a weak response to the latest outbreak of this mutating virus. It was easier then to turn away, to deny the full import of anti-Semitism in its most radical form; it is easier now not to think about anti-Semitism at all.

    Remember this the next time you listen to your leftist friends legitimize Palestinian suicide missions against Israel. Remember it when you when you see the President of the US sucking up to Iran whose leaders have promised to "wipe Israel off the map." Remember it next time you watch the antics of the supposedly "anti-war" left--who are not so much anti-war as they are anti-American and profoundly anti-Israel. Remember it as you watch resolution after resolution come out of the United Nations denouncing Israel--particularly the so-called "human rights" council, which Obama has recently re-legitimized and acknowledged.

    Indeed, be vigilant against anti-semitism like our amazingly two-faced President says. And also, watch very carefully where it is coming from these days....

    Thursday, June 11, 2009

    I RULE THE WORLD!!! - Obamanic Version

    (with apologies to Coldplay)


    I was elected to rule the world
    Seas will rise when I give the word
    And I sit upon a lovely throne
    On the planet that I now own

    I used to organize
    See the love in the media's eyes
    Listen as the crowd would sing
    "You are a god! You are the king!"

    I was presented the golden key
    And the White House opened to me
    And no one knows that my rhetoric stands
    Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

    I hear The muezzin call me to pray
    And wonder what Jeremiah's going to say;
    Christ and Allah, my sword and shield--
    It really pays bigtime to play the field...

    For some reason I can't explain
    I always love dearly to hear my name
    I believe in me
    And now I'll rule from sea to sea.

    It was the wicked and wild right
    I always knew I had to fight
    Krauthammer can have his fun--
    But everyone sees that I'm The One

    Revolutionaries just can't wait
    For the U.S. on a silver plate
    Just a planet with time running out
    Savior of the World's what I'm all about

    I hear The muezzin call me to pray
    And wonder what Jeremiah's going to say;
    Christ and Allah, my sword and shield--
    It really pays bigtime to play the field...

    For some reason I can't explain
    I always love dearly to hear my name
    I believe in me
    And now I'll rule from sea to sea.

    And, file this under "dreams from my POTUS"...or is that nightmares?

    [Cartoons by Gary McCoy]

    Wednesday, June 10, 2009


    In, "The Collapse of the Global Left", Bruce Walker documents the implosion of the political left in California, Britain, and most of Europe; then concludes:
    American voters are bombarded by their media with the message that conservatism is dead, because a Democrat got 52 perecent of the presidential vote. Meanwhile, the collapse of the Left proceeds apace elsewhere in the world.

    Read it all.

    Thomas Sowell once wrote that the that political left have a major "investment in failure":
    It is not just in Iraq that the political left has an investment in failure. Domestically as well as internationally, the left has long had a vested interest in poverty and social malaise.

    The old advertising slogan, "Progress is our most important product," has never applied to the left. Whether it is successful black schools in the United States or Third World countries where millions of people have been rising out of poverty in recent years, the left has shown little interest.

    Progress in general seems to hold little interest for people who call themselves "progressives." What arouses them are denunciations of social failures and accusations of wrong-doing.

    One wonders what they would do in heaven.

    We are in no danger of producing heaven on earth but there have been some remarkable developments in some Third World countries within the past generation that have allowed many very poor people to rise to a standard of living that was never within their reach before.

    The August 18th issue of the distinguished British magazine "The Economist" reveals the economic progress in Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American nations that has given a better life to millions of their poorest citizens.

    Some of the economic policies that have led to these results are discussed in "The Economist" but it is doubtful that members of the political left will stampede there to find out what those policies were.

    Go on! Take a wild stab at whether the policies involved allowed the "selfish" free market to operate; or whether they represented the latest in "selfless" tyranny.

    Coincidentally, America as a whole is about to appreciate the "selfless" tyranny of complete leftist rule. We have the selfless-tyrant-in-chief, whose every move is calculated for our very own good--and, only incidentally, to keep himself in power by stacking the political deck (think ACORN, the recently articulated goals of the NEW, IMPROVED! Injustice Department, and all the usual double dealing and payoffs that America has come to associate with Chicago-style thug/politicians, who are easily mistaken by the left as god-like and worshipped.

    In the same piece quoted above, Sowell went on to note:
    Despite whatever the left may say, or even believe, about their concern for the poor, their actual behavior shows their interest in the poor to be greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the left's denunciations of society.

    When the poor stop being poor, they lose the attention of the left. What actions on the part of the poor, or what changes in the economy, have led to drastic reductions in poverty seldom arouse much curiosity, much less celebration.

    The collapse of the global left is due to its pervasive intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Obama is the poster boy for this bankruptcy; and he carelessly and stupidly repeats all the mistakes of the left's past. This time he thinks it will work out because HE is the one in charge and he has cleverly repackaged all those failed policies in ribbons of hope and boxes of change.

    But the disastrous policies he and the Democrats are ramming down America's throat remain out of touch with reality; and like all the despots before him, he will deliberately and callously ignore the actual consequences to real people. Like most on the left, he is truly only concerned with two main issues: feeling good about his moral superiority over the common folk (along with all the attendant preening self-righteousness and moral lecturing); and obtaining power over others (for their own good, and society's).

    The world is starting to awaken from the left's utopian nightmare, which at its core is is regressive, rather than progressive. As for the left's claim of being "reality-based"....the only time they see reality is when they watch it in their rear view mirror disappearing into the distance.


    [Cartoons by Eric Allie ]

    Turns out, the miracle worker's substance and style are being picked up in all the chic, jihadi places of the world!
    ...hope and change has come to ... AL QAEDA!

    Ayman Zawahiri announced today that, under the Recruitment Stimulus Initiative Insha Allah (RSIIA), the terror network has created or saved 10,000 jihadist jobs (resulting in a concurrent creation or saving of 720,000 virgins!).

    Zawahiri added that al Qaeda has appointed an Explosive Czar. It has also taken over al-Shabaab in Somalia — although Zawahiri insists this is a temporary take-over because, with two wars to run, the last thing CEO Osama bin Laden wants to be doing right now is running a failing cell in Somalia.

    Andy McCarthy is kidding...I think. Everyone knows those awful Al Qaeda guys are ruthless con men.

    Tuesday, June 09, 2009


    I refer you to this article, in which President Miraculous promises 600,000 new jobs and intends to increase the stimulus.
    President Obama today will promise to deliver more than 600,000 new jobs this summer with accelerated spending of some of the $787-billion economic stimulus that Congress approved at his urging earlier this year.

    Minor detail, though:
    The promised boost in employment will not offset the job losses of recent months — with more than 1.6 million jobs shaved from the economy since Congress approved the stimulus plan in February. Unemployment last month reached 9.4 percent, the highest since 1983.

    And a further reality check: I happen to subscribe to the Stephen Green GUT of Sucking:
    Look, stimulus spending can’t work, because of one of three things happens:

    1. That extra spending means extra taxes which means the whole thing is a wash. (Government spending having some “multiplier” effect unknown to consumer or business spending is a big, fat lie.)

    2. That extra spending means extra debt, which drives up interest rates, which chokes off growth.

    3. That extra spending means extra money being printed, which means inflation which means any growth is illusory.

    Of course, there’s no rule saying you can pick only one result. Mix and match up to all three to suit yourself! If I had to bet, I’d say we will indeed get all three.

    This is not pessimism or "doom and gloom"; it's economic reality whether you--or Obama-- like it or not; and whether you believe with all your heart in the miraclulous healing properties of the Obamessiah.

    I am actually an optimist, in that I believe when it comes down to a contest between the theories of the political left and reality, reality will always win.

    UPDATE: Cue the laughter.... and the giggles.

    Monday, June 08, 2009


    "Obama Beach" may have been more a prophetic Freudian slip than even Gordon Brown imagined; particularly after Obama's Cairo speech.

    In the book by Neville Shute, the war that devastated the world was begun with the bombing of the US and the UK by Egypt. The aircraft used were obtained from the USSR.

    A little too close to the current state of the world for comfort, I think.

    Walid Phares asks some pertinent questions about that Cairo speech, which all reasonable people should consider before proclaiming it to be "one of history's best":

    1. Is the equation of mending relations between a nation state, America, and a whole civilization, Islam, rational? Is it academically sound to put one country and fifty two other countries in one framework of relationships? Are all 52 Muslim countries in one basket and America in another? Who framed this equation?

    2. The speech mentioned "violent extremists" several times as the foe to contain and isolate. Is there not a clearer explanation of what is "violent extremism" and who are the followers of such a behavior? Is about violence only? Are all those who practice violence, from household abuse, gangsterism to mass murder part of one group? Of course not. So what constitutes extremism? Do "violent extremists" have an ideology, a platform, goals, strategies? Are they the Jihadists that the whole world knows about? Why wouldn't President Obama simply name them as such?

    3. The speech argued that Americans were "traumatized" because of 9/11 and thus their view of Islam changed. Why would their view of a religion change because of an attack perpetrated by 19 hijackers? Who is drawing this conclusion? In short, if indeed Americans had a change in perception after 9/11, what was their perception before? Is this reality or is it the framing of the war of ideas by the apologist elite? Why is there a complex of guilt forced on Americans?

    4. The speech argued directly and indirectly that the US government -- because of 9/11 -- did things it was not supposed to do constitutionally (or ethically). Among these breaches Mr. Obama mentioned the opening of Guantanamo. The question is: Is opening a detention center in a state of war (even not declared officially) in which active elements of the armed opponents are detained is an act aimed against an entire religion? Who said so and who framed it as such?

    5. The speech delved in the claim that Islam "has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." While it is perfectly legitimate for academics to engage in such research and draw the conclusions they wish, can an elected President in a liberal democracy make philosophical assertions in the field of controversial and debated conflicts -- not part of his or her national realm?

    6. The speech -- rightly so -- praised the integration of Muslim-Americans in their own country. But did the President mention why a large number of American citizens fled many Muslim countries, including Muslim-American citizens?

    7. The speech -- rightly so -- rejected stereotypes about Muslims and America. However who made these stereotypes, who propagated the narrative that they exist and who is indoctrinating segments of societies about the latter?

    Some have praised Obama for the supposed "courage" he is showing by making a speech addressed to Muslims. Some have even suggested that he got in a few good points that the Muslim world needed to hear (e.g., his scolding about Holocaust denial). But I can't get something Wretchard wrote the other day out of my mind.
    He was writing about about the former State Department official and his wife who were recently arrested for spying for Cuba, and in the comments section penned this gem:
    What happened to root causes? The latest word is that Myers was from a very socially prominent family in DC. He had prestige, an education, money. The trust of his country. What was his beef? Nothing, at least, that can be explained through the “root causes” theory.

    What makes people like Bill Ayers hate their own country? Marxism, at least in its upper reaches, is the exclusive preserve of what they call the bourgeosie, the petty bourgeosie, or the downright rich. You won’t find workers and peasants among the movers and the shakers of the Marxist nomenklatura, except the token ones. No. These are people who want for nothing tangible or even logically compelling. They aren’t out to tear apart the world for justice. They’re out to remake it in their own image. If Mr. Myers was a indeed a spy, he didn’t do it for money; nor even for any rational reason. He did it for vanity; because he saw himself as morally superior in his own mind. He felt entitled.

    These are funny people who can betray people they’ve known and worked with; possibly send them to their deaths and yet expect to be praised for their higher morality. They are crazy in their own way, full of bizarre punctilio. Angry if you get an academic citation wrong; outraged if you choose the white wine with meat; apoplectic if you happen to like Kentucky Fried Chicken yet wholly devoid of the smallest iota of normal human kindness. Emotionally they are no different from the Nazis, who could listen to Bach and weep at Wagner while sending children to the gas chamber.

    Early on I discovered they could kill, without compunction, pity or remorse. Indeed they could kill with the most astounding self-righteousness. Readers will remember the proof of God’s existence I gave to someone in the Party. God exists because the Devil exists; the Devil exists because Hell exists; Hell exists because there must someplace to put the leaders of the Party.

    Obama and Ayers are cut from the same cloth. They want to implement this thing called "social justice"-- which is Marxist for the divine right of narcissists; and they even have convinced themselves that that this divine right give them some sort of ticket to claiming a "higher morality" and superiority over the rest of us.

    Ayers was clearly willing to kill without compunction; he's still proud of this achievment today.

    Do you imagine that Obama, who prefers not to get so down and dirty, and is willing to sacrifice entire nations, isn't? (think Israel, as just one example; or, think America) I suppose I should give him the benefit of the doubt since he is POTUS, but so far pretty much everything he says turns out to be unsaid by next day; and every speech he gives is entirey self-referential. I'm afraid that I simply am unable to trust him to act in the best interests of anyone but himself.

    Next time you listen to one of his glib, hypnotic speeches that give everybody something and everybody nothing at the same time, pay attention to what he doesn't say.

    The adoring editor of Newsweek thinks Obama is a god. But if he isn't--and the chances are pretty much zero that he is-- then he may well turn out to be that elusive proof of God's existence that Wretchard was talking about.