Saturday, May 28, 2011


In Part I, I discussed the first two deadly sins of Narcissism (Shamelessness and Magical Thinking) and how they are owned primarily by the postmodern progressive left. Today's topics are the next three narcissistic sins: ARROGANCE, ENVY, AND ENTITLEMENT.

Let's start with how the political left actively works to diminish, debase or degrade their political opponents--not in any appropriate way by attacking their ideas; but in a deliberate attempt to destroy them personally so that in their opponents' destruction their own self-worth can be puffed up. In fact, the sine qua non of the progressive political left is the politics of personal destruction.

In this, they have been aided and abetted by the Gurus of Self-Esteem. Most people confuse "self-esteem" with what I will refer to as 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 "Self", you are likely to have a healthy self-esteem--which is not the same at all as a high self-esteem.

The psychological defect in malignant narcissism is a broken or distorted sense of one's SELF. The excessive self-esteem and swaggering arrogance that you see in a typical bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their own self. It was once widely believed that low self-esteem was a cause of violence--and you see that idea reflected today in the platitudes and rationalizations for terrorism or any destructive behavior-- but, the reality is that most violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves.

The triumvarate of cognitive contradictions promulgated by today's narcissistic left, and which claim to be based on "scientific" psychology includes the hyping of (1) self-esteem (i.e., increasing your self-worth without having to achieve anything; (2) hope (i.e., achieving your goals without any real effort) and (3) victimhood (i.e.,it's not your fault that you haven't achieved anything or made any effort).

The first of these cognitve contradictions leads to inappropriate arrogance and an inflated sense of one's own self worth; which, since it is not based on anything real but only only on the denigration or debasement of others, is extremely fragile and must be defended--violently and ruthlessly, if necessary--when challenged.


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 whose person or ideas threatens them.

Such rage responses are invariably destructive, mean, and often incredibly petty. 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. You can often imagine them chanting to themselves, "I am so special! I am so special!"; or like Homer Simpson, "I am so smart. S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T", as he accidentally sets the house on fire.

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 justified to themselves, of course, as being "for their own good"); a constant need admiration and adulation; and grandiose, often insatiable ambitions.

This arrogance thuse makes them remarkably adept at the "politics of personal destruction".

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.

Ad hominem attacks are preferred since the narcissistic is hopelessly outclassed on the battlefield of ideas. Watch carefully and you will notice that whenever an idea or proposal is brought forth regarding the economy that is inconsistent with their ideology, the postmodern left attacks the person whose idea it was, NOT the idea itself except through gross distortion and deception. Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are just two recent examples of conservatives who are personally attacked to ensure that their ideas are not discussed in any rational or civil manner.

And, as mentioned previously, watch the rage and vicious insults that are casually expressed toward anyone who should know their place in the leftist victimhood heirarchy (e.g., a woman or a black conservative for example) dares to disagree with their political positions.

Hence the current state of political discourse and the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns to some extent, but which are constantly decried by the left, even as they desperately try to pin anything bad that happens on their enemies, the conservatives or Republicans.

The tragic shooting of Representative Giffords by a paranoid schizophrenic is a case in point. The left self-righteously and arrogantly pinned that one on Sarah Palin, a go-to whipping boy girl for the left. They desperately need for Palin or any female conservative to be identified as eeeeevil, so that they can bask in the glow of their own goodness and self-righteousness.

Frankly, a schizophrenic is truly sick in every medical/physiological/biological sense of the word; but the progressive left suffers from an illness that is
philosophical/moral/spiritual and ethical sense.

If you want to understand why politics has become so virulent and personally vicious you need not look any farther that this sad truth. While politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; often it is the people of no integrity and 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; 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. And, the less they know of that character, the better (witness the character with tabula rasa who was elected in the last Presidential election)!

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 can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their public care to project onto them.

Arrogance is not necessarily a vice--or even a deadly sin--when you actually have achieved something in the real world to be arrogant about. But spending other people's money and claiming it is your divine right to do so; looting other people's wealth; or seeking to control other people's lives so that you can feel virtuous and powerful is about as deadly a sin as there is. Wretchard writes in "The Fatal Phrase", a post about arrogant serial seducer and former head of the IMF (and the socialist party in France) who incredulously asked a hotel maid he was forcing himself on, "Don't you know who I am?"
People actually like to feel important. they crave recognition and using the words “don’t you know who I am” indicates they believe they’ve arrived and the waves should part before them.

John Kerry is rather notorious for this same behavior. And who can forget Qaddafi's "Tokyo Rose" Cynthia McKinney who assaulted a police officer at the Capitol back in 2006 because he had the temerity to ask for identification from her. Not surprisingly, because he did not immediately recognize her, she framed the encounter that she was a "victim" of 'racial profiling' (see #3 in the cognitive contradictions listed above).

This is not the kind healthy self-esteem which allows a person to face real threats in the real world very effectively because the narcissist cannot deal effectively with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the polls indicate they should?.

That is why candidates like Obama are so attractive: because this same voting base that once adored Hillary now find her too too obvious and coarse, and have 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 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 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.

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.

This aristocratic arrogance that is characteristic of a typical narcissist makes them view all issues through the prism of their own sad little egos.

Let us turn for a moment to another great poobah of unrestrained narcissism and aristocratic arrogance; the pious and morally righteous ex-President Jimmy Carter; who provides a case demonstration of the those who claim genuine superiority over others. "James Taranto tells this pertinent story about Carter by way of John Sugg:
Carter fittingly used a parable to illustrate how he'd like to see the political/religious debate unfold.

"I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?' Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society? Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it? Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it? Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'

"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture . . . then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.' "

Geez. I have met many 6 year olds with a clearer grasp of morality than this tired old man who never met a dictator that he couldn't support; and who appears to think that if someone disagrees with him, then they are clearly against peace; against the poor and weak; against the environment; and for torture!

Just as Barack Obama and his sycophants (or Cynthia McKinney and hers) believe that anyone who challenges them must be racist.

These are examples of the two fundamental types of malignant narcissists -- the "grandiose" narcissist, whose exaggerated sense of self-importance is dominant; and the "idealistic" narcissist, whose exaggerated self-righteous veneer of concern for others masks an underlying obsession with imposing their views on everyone else.

Both types are a plague on humanity; and both represent well-traveled avenues and justifications for limiting freedom and imposing tyranny. The "grandiose" narcissist shares the same psychology as any thug, bully, or tyrant; while the "idealistic" narcissist is the basic psychological fodder for the many groups (run by the grandiose types) who desire to impose their beliefs onto others.

Most narcissists go back and forth between the two basic types, since they are actually flip sides of the same psychological coin. Aristocratic arrogance and pious self-righteousness might appear to be opposites at first glance, but they both are hallmarks of individuals who are unhealthily obsessed with their own sad, little selves.


Gaghdad Bob at One Cosmos, took up this topic in "The Envy of the Left (or No Good News Goes Unpunished)"), and I will quote him at length:
According to Webster's, envy is defined as "malice," and a "painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another, joined with a desire to possess the same advantage." The psychoanalytic understanding of envy is that it is an unconscious fantasy aimed at attacking, damaging, or destroying what is good, because of the intolerable feeling that one does not possess and control the object of goodness. As such, it is an aspect of what Freud called the death instinct, since it ultimately involves a destructive attack on the sources of life and goodness. Particularly envious individuals cannot tolerate the pain of not possessing and controlling the "good object," so they preemptively spoil it so that they don't have to bear the pain.

What is critical--and so perverse--about envy, is that it is not an attack on "the bad" or frustrating, but a hateful attack on what is good. As a result, the psyche of such individuals confuses what is bad and what is good, and cannot experience a sense of gratitude toward the good, the sine qua non of happiness and mental health. The envious person does not want to have a relationship with the good object, but wants to be that object. If it cannot be the object, then it attacks it to eliminate the tension.

Yesterday was an instructive but disturbing case study in the many ways of envy. Here we had such wonderful news coming out of Iraq, but the left found a multitude of ways to devalue, attack, and "spoil" the news through their excessive envy--by ignoring it, by downplaying it, by qualifying it, and by completely assaulting it with near-psychotic delusions.

Bob goes on to detail the general discontent on the left when good news came out of Iraq during Bush's term. If you can recall back to that time, there was NEVER anything that was positive about that war for the left. All good news was twisted and made to appear bad. Harry Reid even went on about how the "war was lost", and this meme was repeated over and over again as the left sought to undermine any and all progress there. The MSM was entirely complicit in this.

Contrast this sharply to the accolades (albeit grudging at times) that many conservatives and Republicans gave to Obama for ordering the operationthat killed Bin Laden. I heard it repeatedly said, even on eeevil Fox News! Granted that they all would have preferred that the previous Administration had been successful at this; and were annoyed that Obama (in his usual arrogant "It's all about me" way took more than his share of the credit); but nevertheless, they managed to control their envy because they realized what a positive event this was for the country.

You would be loathe to find a progressive who, even today, is willing to give Bush any credit at all for his actions on behalf of the U.S. Everything Bush ever did was bad; the same things when Obama does them are wonderful beyond belief.

Bob concludes:
Envy is such an important but generally ignored concept, probably because people don't want to consider the sinister ways it operates in their own lives. But it is a key that unlocks many mysteries, particularly in politics. So strong and ubiquitous is envy, that you cannot have a political system that doesn't accommodate or find some way to manage envy. You might say that one party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones.

ENVY is, without doubt, the underlying emotion behind the Marxist trope, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need". The "enlightened" and morally bankrupt left has always believed that economic self-interest means simply voting yourself a share of the money earned by others. They wouldn't know how to create wealth if their lives depended on it; that's why they seek power over others--they see it as the only way they can survive in the real world; but since they cannot admit that to themselves, they will seize other people's wealth with one hand, while signing the political bills that make it impossible to create the wealth on which they themselves depend.

The truth is that they deeply hate those who create the wealth they want to steal, and seek to destroy them--even though at some level, they understand they cannot survive without them.

They count on the fact that this reality never spoken of in polite society.

The envy of the postmodern progressive left is palpable. It is malignant and it consumes them. But they don't care. They have convinced themselves that they stand for things like "peace" and "freedom" and "truth"--but they have really chosen to ally themselves to the side of darkness and despair, slavery and oppression, lies and distortions; and they can no longer even appreciate when a truly magnificent achievement takes place before their very eyes unless they can claim credit for it.


What can I say about entitlement and the left's preoccupation with it that hasn't already been said? In this area, the political left's narcissism has run completely amok. Any challenge to their supposed superiority is met with rage. In typical projection, they perceive all opposition to them and their policies to be based on the most sinister of motives; people who oppose them are always characterized as lacking intelligence (never mind that Bush got better grades than Kerry--that fact was always downplayed because Bush had to be portrayed as stupid and inept).

This is how they puff up their own inadequate egos. But sadly, denigrating others is never enough for long to keep those egos inflated. They must find others to debase and destroy, like an addict who needs the high.

Narcissists always want more. Whatever you do is never good enough for them, and they also generally show no gratitute or express any thanks--even when someone goes out of their way for them. Like the most spoiled of royalty, they merely expect that they should be the center of your world at all times.

This attitude is normally seen in toddlers, who want what they want and they want it now. Every parent has had to deal with this kind of whining. When you see this attitude repeatedly in an adult, then you know you are dealing with psychopathology. Many adults whimper at the slightest inconvenience, delay, or restriction. Why? Because, like toddlers, they are convinced they deserve what they want when they want it. They are "entitled" to it.

And the left envision a entire society of entitlement. Their doctrines of multiculturalism and political correctness are all designed to use entitlement as a justification for redistributing the wealth of others. Their various special victim groups are taught to see everything through the prism of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc. That way they can never mentally leave the ideology of the left and are trapped forever in it, demanding that their needs and feelings always be the first priority of others.

Case in point provided by Mark Steyn:
Since most of The Corner's metropolitan pantywaists seem to be cowering in terror from the light flurry devastating Washington this morning, let me offer this headline from the sports pages of The Seattle Weekly:

Gay, Mentally Challenged Biracial Male Cheerleader Claims Discrimination
He was allowed to join the high-school cheerleading team but was not given a set of pom-poms and was prevented from wiggling his hips. So naturally he wants Washington to take political action. This sounds like a job for Harry Reid and Rahm Emmanuel, with their well documented interest in biracial males and the mentally challenged.

In psychiatry we use the term "sense of entitlement" to describe the outrageous attitude of some of our more narcissistic clients who believe that the world "owes" them and they want to collect NOW.

This sense of entitlement has seeped into the culture and we have that good old progressive mentality to thank for it. The psychopathy such an attitude engenders is not a pretty sight. But there's a lot of blame to go around, starting with parents unwilling to set limits; as well as the entire worthless "self-esteem" movement that hypes self-esteem at the expense of self-responsibility and accountability.

All these factors have led to a culture of entitlement which encourages dysfunctional and highly antisocial behavior where the only concern is for one's own needs of the moment and their gratification. Many other factors in our culture reinforce this sort of behavior and even reward and enable it.

The influence of the cult of victimhood grows ever wider as the celebration of victimhood and the sense of entitlement promoted by a quasi-religious leftist/Marxist dogma has become a way of life.

As I have noted many times before, this sad situation has come about in part, because so many of the clueless individuals 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. Is it any wonder that our "gay, mentally challenged, biracial male cheerleader looks to government to solve all his problems and reimburse him for all his "suffering"?

This attitude also dovetails nicely into the Marxist dialectic (which is the foundation of the entitlement culture) and its greedy, grasping promotion of envy and egalitarianism. The world is divided up into two groups, you see: the oppressors (i.e., white, male,heterosexual, Republican, Americans, Israelis; etc. etc) 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).

We are seeing more and more ridiculous stories like the one to which Steyn links. Each one more ridiculous than the last in a never-ending attempt to out-entitle each other.

As you can see, there is quite a bit of overlap in the political left's use of Arrogance, Envy, and Entitlement in the field of politics. At the heart of each of these deadly sins is the belief that their ideology produces superior people with superior intellect, entitled to have power and rule over others. But the "superiority" and sense of entitlement that they desperately cling to is just a thin disguise for the deeper and darker emotions of envy and hatred of the good.

In Part III, the narcissistic sins of Exploitation and Bad Boundaries will be covered.

Have a good weekend!

Wednesday, May 25, 2011


This will be a multi-part post that discusses how postmodern progressive leftism encourages and rewards malignant narcissism and sociopathic behavior. I have discussed elsewhere both the sociopathic selfishness and the sociopathic selflessness that characterizes the malignant variant of narcissism.

Between the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, a fundamentally fascist (i.e., a nationalistic socialist) movement; and with the second wind that has been given to the remnants of the 20th century's failed socialist and communist 'experiments' (in which millions of people were slaughtered by the compassionate and progressive left), we have truly entered a golden age of narcissism where, as Wretchard has commented, " is this single-minded pursuit of the irrelevant by the self-important that constitutes the greatest catastrophe of our time." In this "golden age", personal responsibility has been trashed; reason and truth trivialized; and the celebration of victimhood is the pinnacle of self-empowerment and self-actualization.


In a book titled WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism, authors Hotchkiss and Masterson identify what they call the "seven deadly sins" of narcissism and their origin:

1. Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
2. Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
3. Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
4. Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
5. Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
6. Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
7. Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

The ideology of the political left in all its various iterations--socialist, communist, radical environmentalism, progressive; call it what you will-- is, at its core an essentially narcissistic and self-indulgent pursuit of power, with all the unhealthy psychological attributes that implies

This is not to suggest that narcissism or sociopathy exit merely within the political left. Clearly it does not. But, having made that qualification, today's progressive leftist is steeped in and encouraged by an ideology that rewards only feelings and not critical thinking or truth; fantasy and not reality; and good intentions instead of actual outcome in the real world. The seven deadly sins of narcissism outlined above lead the the poor, innocent and unsuspecting lefist into cognitive dissonance in his thinking patterns and wreak all sorts of misery and spiritual destruction on the people who are the targets of the leftists' supposed goodwill.

But they neither care nor notice, since the primary determinant of why they do what they do is to make themselves feel good; to escape for one brief moment the emptiness of their own individual souls and the self-hatred and rage that motivate them.

Let's discuss these psychological 'sins' one by one and see how they accurately describe the psychology that is the basis of modern leftist thought.

I have written about shame extensively in connection to the Arab World, a culture that is primarily a shame-based. In the case of the Arab world, I explained, they were plagued by an excess of shame, which was the underlying root cause of their societal dysfunction.

OTOH, utter shamelessness, the flip side of excessive shame, is highly characteristic of those who think themselves superior to others and not governed by the rules that ordinary mortals subscribe to.

To understand how related these two extremes of shame are, we need to discuss exactly what shame is and why it is necessary for both individuals and society as a whole.

Shame itself, is often an underappreciated psychological state. Particularly in the modern world, but also throughout history, shame-- in limited quantities and small doses--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately.

Healthy shame, in fact, keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. To quote Dirty Harry on the subject, "A man's got to know his limitations."
When an individual experiences healthy shame, he or she may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness can be both insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.

The key point, whether you are talking about excessive shame or shamelessness--that is the absence of shame even when shame would be appropriate, is that the emotion that drives both states is identical. Like the two sides of the same coin,excessive shame and shamelessess are inseparable. Individuals very often flip-flop between the two extremes when they cannot process the reality of their own unacceptable feelings or behavior.

It is for this reason, the political left shares with the Arab world a basically ""shame culture and why each are fascinated with, and admire (and emulate) the other's behavior.

One way that the shame culure plays out on the political left is in their response to ethical and moral challenges.

Next time there is a huge scandal in the news (sexual or otherwise), note the underlying mental gymnastics that permit the media to "forget" to report ethically inappropriate actions by Democrats compared to Republicans. If such actions go unreported--or only make it to Page 6 of the news, it is as if somehow the behavior is minimized and/or trivialized.

This almost never happens when it is a Republican who has strayed or had a broken moral compass--a topic that can stay on top of the national headlines for weeks on end. And note, that if a Democrat's unethical or scandalous behavior DOES make the front page, you will be unable to discover which political party he or she is actually a member. It may be mentioned, but farther down in the lede; more often it is not even mentioned at all.

Now, ask yourself how a typical Republican responds to scandal. Generally, he or she is capable of feeling both shame and guilt about the behavior in question, whether it is in the public or personal domain; and frequently this acknowledgment of his behavior leads him to resign from office sooner, rather than later. Often, he will retreat entirely from public life. The conservative tends to have high moral standards that he expects not only of himself, but of others and is ashamed when he violates them; even more so when the knowledge of his violation is made public (which Democrats can always count on the press to do). At this point, psychological denial about the behavior cannot be maintained.

This reality is also twisted by the left, who pounce on the supposed "hypocrisy" of conservatives who, for example, preach family values but then have affairs or behave badly. Indeed, this is precisely my point. When a Republican or conservative behaves counter to his standards, he experiences a healthy dose of appropriate shame.

Democrats and those on the left HAVE NO MORAL OR ETHICAL STANDARDS TO BEGIN WITH (that's what moral relativism is all about), hence when their reprehensible behavior is exposed for all to see, they are utterly shameless about it. They have managed to convince themselves that they are, on the whole, morally superior to the common riff-raff (and certainly compared to evil Republicans and conservatives they perceive themselves to be virtual saints; champions of the poor and oppressed and leaders in goodness). For such a person how can any traditional rules of behavior apply? When you subscribe to an ideology that emphasizes how loving, compassionate, and caring and "reality-based" you are as its central theses, then you are home free! So, even when your reprehensible behavior is made public, then you are not mandated to feel any shame--shame is for losers.

And, as a last resort, if you begin to feel too uncomfortable, you can always play the victimhood card--because, after all, if you did something bad someone or something else must have made you do it.

In this regard, I will cite only two recent examples--John Edwards and Barney Frank. Both of whom created a three ring circus proclaiming their innocence and purity endlessly ad nauseum, despite all evidence to the contrary, knowing that they would be defended by the ever loyal useful idiots of the left for as long as possible.

After all, they are better people than the rest of us and this entitles them to behave badly.

Many Democrats and certainly most leftists are completely shameless in the sense that they will never ever, for as long as they can possibly get away with it, going to admit to bad behavior. And in those rare cases where they simply cannot wiggle and maneuver and lie and deceive; or self-righteously tell you how wonderful they really are and all the wonderful things they have done for the 'little people'; they will simply pretend they are still virtuous and have been victimized in some way. What's sad is that they often believe it themselves.

Vanderleun recently wrote a piece about "Democrats and socialists gone wild". In it, he describes the exploits of three of the latest acts of shamelessness by those on the left. In both instances, there are rants and rages against those who accuse them (often by the intellectuals of the left); and for as long as possible they will pretend they are victims of bad behavior by others (this is psychological projection). Note John Edward's latest rant, for example. And how can we ever forget the "I did not have sex with that woman" moment during the glory days of Bill Clinton's victimization by Monica Lewinski?

Let's face the truth here. We all sin and engage in reprehensible behavior from time to time. We are all certainly capable of it. But the shamelessness about it that I am describing is really only typical of those individual with significant narcissistic defects in their personality. Again, without a doubt, narcissists and liars and cheats exist on both sides of the political aisle. But a narcissist in a guilt culture behaves somewhat differently than a narcissist in a shame culture (see the link on shame cultures vs guilt cultures for a discussion of this).

In general, Republicans and conservatives believe they have better ideas. But Democrats and leftists believe they are better people.

This makes all the difference in their experience of shame--or their lack of experiencing it.

MAGICAL THINKING, or Fairy Tales Can Come True.

The second deadly sin is "magical thinking". In psychiatry, this phrase describes a pervasive belief that one can control things or persons or events with one's thoughts or feelings (that's where the "magic" comes in). There is ofter a considerable amount psychological distortion going on, as well as psychlogical projection (see also here). These creative psychological maneuvers serve to maintain the magical thinking and obscure reality and truth, which is far too threatening for the fragile ego of the leftist.

How are these maneuvers manifest in the behavior of today's left?

In general the postmodern political left, which touts itself as "reality-based" is far from it. They emphasize the acendency of feelings over reason--and, as witness to this, they are primarily concerned about feeling good about themselves. They care little about the actual outcome of the social programs that they support, it's all about them and their supposed "compassion". They blindly perpetuate the victimhood mentality since creating and nurturing victimhood and perpetual grievance expands their base and brings in new recruits for their ideology. But let anyone one of those 'victims' from an approved victimhood group break away and empower themselves and you will begin to see the sometimes rather vicious hatred that underlies their loving compassion for the oppressed.

Any who oppose their anti-poverty schemes must "hate" the poor; any who want to empower minority groups to take responsibility for their lives and fortunes are described as 'racist'; any who think that the content of a person's characteer or the qualifications for the job trump race or gender or sexual orientation, are by their definition racist, sexist or homophobic--take your pick.

The highway to today's hell is paved with all their wonderful intentions. They mean well, and therefore if you oppose them by presenting better ideas, you must, by definition, be evil.

In order to preserve the fantasy that people with leftist beliefs are "better people" than those evil righty conservatives we see repeated instances of psychological projection (externalizing their own feelings onto others) and distortion of reality.

Further, we can witness even more of their political "magical thinking" in the foreign policy initiatives of the Obama Administration; as well as in the parallel fantasies that have characterized most of the economic policies of the White House and Democrats. They have the strange notion that reckless spending can go on forever on any program that they deem "essential" and for a "good cause" (when that is determined by the left it becomes sacrosanct).

First, let's take a look at current foreign policy.Bruce Thornton has written about the magical thinking that seems to dominate Obama's thinking:
Worse, however, is the magical thinking that lies behind the mantra of “diplomacy.” This faith in talk is predicated on assumptions about human nature and state behavior difficult to validate by the historical record. It reflects a Western Enlightenment idea that force is an outmoded relic of our primitive past, to be replaced by rational discussion in which give-and-take dickering, negotiation, respect for the other side’s position and demands, and a mutual, sincere desire to adjudicate grievance and avoid conflict can resolve disagreements. The key assumption is that in the end all people are rational and want peace and comfort more than any other good.

Obama has pushed the "reset" button on a number of fronts, but surprise! We are still hated, only now we are also routinely mocked because Obama is perceived as weak and uninvolved. Over the past two years we have routinely thrown our friends under the Obama bus; while appeasing and bowing to our enemies. We have routinely focused on the less important (to our national interest anyway) issues like Libya and Quadaffi; rather than take a strong stance on Iran, a major and imminent threat, not only to the region, but to our national interests in the region. Time and again, Obama has resorted to his supposedly "magical" rhetoric, as if words without the necessary backbone to stand behind them. When he actually does something like give the order to go in and take down Bin Laden (and, I still believe that all the psychological evidence suggests that Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that action, but when it turned out ok was perfectly willing to take all the credit) many on the left had a hissy fit and rushed to condemn it as somehow being "inconsistent with our values."

It's hard to be consistent with one's values when those "values" change on a daily basis depending on which way the wind blows. Remember, the goal is not reason or truth or consistency to values, but promoting a particular ideology. That is why there the left demonstrates "subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next."

For them, their magical thinking is absolute...magic. It makes all those unpleasant realities simply go away when they do not fit into their philosophy

Meanwhile, on the economic front it is undoubtedly clear that there is a considerable amount of magical thinking going on on both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to the economy, but recently there has some attempts to start a rational conversation that could address the serious problem with debt and spending this country is faced with. The Ryan Economic Plan, which calls for both tax cuts AND decreased spending is a case in point. Yet, far from using this as a starting point to discuss reality, it has instead been used for the purpose of villifying Republican who now stand accused of wanting to push granny off a cliff.

This new ad put out by the Democrats could just as easily been produced by a grossly psychotic individual, completely out of touch with reality; so severe is the distortion and deception it demonstrates. Meanwhile, in keeping with the magical thinking, the left seems to believe that doing nothing is a safe strategy (and it might well be from a political or ideological perspective; but reality probably isn't going to agree with them for very long; but hey, "In the long run we are all dead", right? So only think in the short run and imagine that all these problems will go away; meanwhile grab as much power as you can now.

Narcissists just know that their fairy tale can come true. They believe as fervently as any religious fanatic that their wishes and feelings are more powerful than reality.

Unfortunately for all of us, what those wishes and feelings actually create is usually a freakin' mess for others to clean up.

In Part II, I will tackle the narcissistic sins of Arrogance, Envy and Entitlement.

UPDATE: Vanderluen notes in the comments that he has a related post on the left and the Seven Deadly Sins (you know, those Biblical ones: PRIDE, ENVY, WRATH, SLOTH, LUST, AVARICE and GLUTTONY. Check it out.

Friday, May 20, 2011


Obama has basically abandoned Israel and given carte blanche to attacks on all its borders. Rick Santorum thinks that Israel is in deadly peril:
Today, Israel is surrounded by an armed alliance of Jihadist fundamentalists and nationalists, from North to South to East. Its West is the Mediterranean ocean, where Israel’s enemies would like to push her Jewish population. And Pres. Barack Obama has just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.

And I have to agree with him and with Krauthammer's assessment tonight on the Fox All Stars.

Meanwhile, The Corner's Andrew Stiles has leaked a copy of the Democrats budget proposal and it reflects the ideology they espouse perfectly:

Harry Reid, best known for his brilliant mind; economic acumen and overwhelming patriotic concern for his country had this to say:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it would be "foolish" for Democrats to propose their own federal budget for 2012, despite continued attacks from Republicans that the party is ducking its responsibility to put forward a solution to the nation's deficit problems.

"There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion," Reid said in an interview Thursday. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage."

Maybe this really will be the end of the world tonight.

Unfortunately, I fear things are going to get a lot worse. And I'm an optimist.

***(I wanted to get this post in 'under the wire' or at least before the trumpets sound, so to speak...see you next week...maybe)

Monday, May 16, 2011


Sorry for the light blogging. I am in the process of getting my daughter (I can't believe she's all grown up!!) off to college this week. It's both painful and exhilarating for both of us; and there is a lot to do.

How time seems like just a short while ago she was a tiny little baby; then taking her first steps and then off to kindergarden! This is a big moment in my life and an even bigger one in hers.

Walking Away

For Sean
By C. Day Lewis

It is eighteen years ago, almost to the day-
A sunny day with the leaves just turning,
The touch-lines new-ruled - since I watched you play
Your first game of fotball, then, like a satellite
Wrenched from its orbit, go drifting away

Behind a scatter of boys. I can see
You walking away from me towards the school
with the pathos of a half-fledged thing set free
Into a wilderness, the gait of one
Who finds no path where the path should be.

That hesitant figure, eddying away
Like a winged seed loosened from its parent stem,
Has something I never quite grasp to convey
About nature's give-and-take - the small, the scorching
Ordeals which fire one's irresolute clay.

I had worse partings, but none that so
Gnaws at my mind still. Perhaps it is roughly
Saying what God alone could perfectly show-
How selfhood begins with a walking away,
And love proved in the letting go.

Here is the Boo on our Pismo Beach trip earlier this month:

Hope to be back to more regular blogging by the middle of next week!

Sunday, May 15, 2011


Now that Obama and the Dems have got in touch with their inner neocon, they can't seem to get enough of that foreign policy forbidden fruit....

Of course, when you are a Cognitively Dissonant Democrat (but perhaps that is redundant?), the fruit tastes a lot better when a Democrat is in the White House--why just about anything behavior is now possible!

[Political Cartoons by Eric Allie]

Wednesday, May 11, 2011


Here, he takes on Obama, point by point regarding the GOP budget proposal:

And for VP, perhaps someone with foreign policy chops and no BS--perhaps John Bolton?

But then I am rather partial to straight shooters and talkers.


But then, what do you expect of an organization that has become anti-freedom, anti-human rights, and even anti-human? Anne Bayefsky writes:
The U.N.’s top human rights official took time this past week to concern herself about the treatment Bin Laden received as he was killed. She demanded to know “the precise facts surrounding his killing” for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, “counter-terrorism activity…in compliance with international law” means “you’re not allowed…to commit extra-judicial killings.” And this requirement would only be satisfied if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their “stated…intention…to arrest bin Laden if they could.”

On Friday, two professors and part-time U.N. “experts,” Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, issued a joint statement on Bin Laden’s killing. The two academics claimed that “the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment.” They also insisted that the U.N. was entitled to receive “more facts” “to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards.” Those standards would be violated, they claimed, unless “the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.”

The suggestion from these two U.N. authority-figures that America is criminally at fault for killing Bin Laden if their terms have not been satisfied is both offensive and legally false.

Bayefsky also notes that,"... U.N. reaction to Bin Laden’s death indicates that the Obama administration’s warm embrace of the organization is endangering American lives."

I think though that she is overlooking an important Obama characterological pattern, which is to sell out his own supporters in the service of self-aggrandizement. The UN and it's rising power have always been an important attraction to the man. In fact, I have always believed that Obama is on the prowl for something bigger than just being President of the US--a country that he has mixed feelings about to begin with. His ego will demand that he move beyond America, particularly after he finishes his various denunciations and denigrations of this country.

I think he has always had his sights set on becoming Secretary General of the UN, and that is why he belittles America and bows to the UN whenever possible. This is the major reason why I expect that Obama will backtrack and hem and haw and eventually (after his poll bounce, of course; and, if he can keep the bounce going, after his successful re-election in 2012) find some way to "disown" the takedown of OBL.

Think he can't do it? Watch and see. I could be wrong, but when it becomes a liability for him (and it will, eventually), all bets are off except being able to count on Obama's overweening narcissism.

Monday, May 09, 2011


Jonathan Kay has written an article that discusses Geert Wilders'"problem with Islam"--which is incredibly similar to my own problem with the religion:
Of course, in the modern, politically correct Western tradition, hatred expressed toward a religion typically is held on the same level of human-rights opprobrium as hatred expressed toward a race or an ethnicity. But Islam is not really a religion at all, as Mr. Wilders sees it, but rather a retrograde political ideology with religious trappings.

He notes that while other religions draw a distinction between God and Caesar, between the secular and the spiritual, Islam demands submission in every aspect of human existence, both through the wording of the Koran itself and the Shariah law that has developed in its shadow. The faith also supplies a justification for aggressive war; vilifies non-believers; and pronounces death upon its enemies. In short, Mr. Wilders argues, it has all the ingredients of what students of 20th century history would recognize as a fully formed totalitarian ideology.

“I see Islam as 95% ideology, 5% religion — the 5% being the temples and the imams,” he tells me. “If you would strip the Koran of all the negative, hateful, anti-Semitic material, you would wind up with a tiny [booklet].”

It’s easy to see why many Europeans casually jump to the conclusion that Mr. Wilders is a hatemonger. He wants to halt non-Western immigration to the Netherlands until existing immigrants can be integrated, and he wants to deport any foreigner who commits a crime — the same sort of policies as those advocated by genuine xenophobes.

But even so, his insistence on the proper distinction between faith and ideology is an idea that deserves to be taken seriously. For it invites the question: If we permit the excoriation of totalitarian cults created by modern dictators, why do we stigmatize (and even criminalize) the excoriation of arguably similar notions when they happen to be attributed to a 7th-century prophet?

After the heralded killing by Navy SEALS in Afghanistan of the religious mass murderer, Osama Bin Laden; it seems appropriate to once again revisit the discussion about the religion that drove him to kill, and which in large part not only supported, but encouraged his killings.

Since 9/11, many people have been careful to make a distinction between "Islam" and "Islamist" in their writings in order not to be accused of discrimation against Muslims--especially those of the "moderate" variety.

After 10 years, though, this elusive sub-species of Muslims remains mostly off the record and largely silent even after numerous atrocities committed in the name of Islam and its god. I happen to think that there may indeed be a large number of Muslims who are good people, and it is not Muslims per se that I have a problem with.

My problem is with Islam, the religion/ideology.

Regarding what is often referred to as the "hijacking" of Islam: Islam was not so much hijacked by extremists (the preferred Obama Administration designation of Islamist ), as it was acutely exposed to the entire world for the viciously misogynistic, anti-life, totalitarian system it evolved into when it was mated with National Socialism in the mid-20th century and then begat an entirely new iteration of Marxism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

It has also been argued that (and I quote Juan Cole here): "Linking Islam… with a pejorative term such as fascism is extremely unfair. In fact, it is a form of racism."

But it is not at all unfair; nor is it in the least bit racist. Rather, it is a logical and very rational conclusion to make based on the empirical evidence.

What has happened to the "moderates" in Islam? Reuel Marc Gerecht offered an explanation not too long ago:
Though Europeans often fail to see it, the secularization of the Muslims living in their midst has been, by and large, a great success. It explains why Muslim activists gain so much attention, be they arch-conservatives, like the devotees of the Tabligh movement in Britain and on the continent who espouse segregation in Europe, or "progressives," like the Switzerland-based intellectual Tariq Ramadan, who refuses forthrightly to declare the Muslim Holy Law null and void as a political testament for Muslims in a European democracy. The moderates have abandoned the field. They have become European. The militants, who perhaps should be seen as deviants from a largely successful process of secularization, are the only ones left ardently praying.

This explains why the so-called "moderate" Muslim has not taken up opposition to the extremists with the ferver that the West anticipated. Instead we see large and protests and mourning of Bin Laden's death by supposedly mainstream Muslims in, of all places, Londonistan.

In a perverted twist of reality and with a toxic infusion of psychological projection, those in the West seeking to discuss in some detail the teachings of Islam which have inspired entire nations and literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Muslims to spew hatred toward other religions; kill "infidels" with the blessings of their religious leaders; oppress and kill women with impunity; and otherwise inflame believers with a virulent madness that verges on the worship of death; are instead themselves vilified and accused of racism and hate.

Christopher Hitchens noted, "The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success."

But the truth is that "Islamophobia" is not a phobia at all-- it is a completely rational fear of an insane and irrational force that seems to be sweeping the world. Being afraid of the so-called "religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah worldwide is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.

Being afraid of Islam as it undermines freedom of speech and thought, as well as and other critical values of Western civilization, is far from a phobia--it is a natural response to the sad reality.

What the UN (and the Islamic world) would like to mandate if they can get away with it, is a sort of meta-Islamophobia--an Islamophobicphobia, to be precise; or, as I would define it, " an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of mere criticism of Islam, as well as a pathological reluctance to hold it to account for the actions and behavior of its followers."

There is much written both in the Middle East and in the West about the proposition that Islam is "under siege" and that hatred of Islam is a rising concern. This has been repeated frequently particularly since the global war on terror (which actually is a global war on Islamic fanatiacism). Those who decry this reality are not only reluctant to admit that the wave of terror and irrational hatred sweeping the world is specifically associated with the religion of Islam; they simultaneously blame the victims of the terror and the objects of the irrational hatred as the one's responsible for its existence. Islam is given a free pass and the shouts of "God is Great" that precede the latest atrocity apparently have nothing to do with what is written in the Koran.

It is getting harder and harder to keep a straight face as the knee-jerk denial and sanctimonious utterings of organizations like CAIR and UN "human rights" committees--not to mention US political figures-- fill the news media on a daily basis with their attacks on anyone who criticizes Islam and their rising institutional anti-semitism and encouragement of Islamic extremism.

Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Islam has given carte blanche to the fanatics in its midst is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet (e.g., planet Hollywood, or planet Marx/Obama).

So, let me say for the record that I reject being labeled as "Islamophobic" utterly. Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks my submission or death. As I have stated previously, for most of my adult life, it seemed perfectly reasonable to ignore Islam. What little I knew of it did not appeal to me in any way whatsoever to encourage me to delve deeper.

I liked it that way.

If I had thought about Muslim values at all (and I didn't) it is likely that I would have been completely turned off to the religion, as opposed to being indifferent to it. I was mildly disgusted and appalled when examples of its rampant brutality were brought to my attention, but frankly, I never understood enough about the religion to place the responisibility for its adherents' behavior onto its teachings.

After 9/11 and becoming aware of organizations like Al Qaeda; ideologies like Wahhabism and its spread; and suddenly recognizing the Palestinian issue for the red herring it was, I could no longer permit myself to be ignorant of what Islam was all about.

In an ideal world, I shouldn't even have to say it, but Islam has forced me to explicitly and loudly state--just as Geert Wilders has-- that I absolutely, thoroughly and unequivocally reject Muslim values and culture, which facilitate and breed hatred and dysfunction in every nation in which they are practiced.

What follows is not an exhaustive list, but let me touch on some of the highlights that form the basis of my rejection:

1. If we are going to talk about oppression, shall I begin with the ubiquitous institutionalized oppression and humiliation of women in Muslim society? Detractors claim that the Quran does not foster this attitude, but witness the devaluation of women; the sexual fear of women; the incarceration of women; the infantilization of women; the social marginalization of women, etc. etc.

2. The overt and institutionalized anti-semitism in Islam, that is frankly paranoid and of psychotic proportions.

3. The assumption of the victim role while actively victimizing other religious groups. This is the entire psychological manipulation involved in the cries of "Islamophobia !"

4. The hypocritical call for tolerance, while promoting intolerance and bigotry among its own adherents.

5. The glorification of death rather than life.

6. The fostering of mindless obedience and punishment of independent thinking.

7. The poverty of ideas and rational thought among its leaders.

8. The inability to condemn unequivocally the barbaric acts done in the name of Islam.

9. The fact that you would force your religion on me, if you could.

As I said, the list is not exhaustive. There are many more reasons why I have come to my intense rejection of this particular religion. As stated in a previous post::
I DON'T CARE ABOUT ISLAM except insofar that people of that faith want to destroy me, my family, my country and my way of life. For more than 50 years of my life, Islam and I got along famously. I completely ignored it; and praise be to Allah, it completely ignored me.

After September 11th, I could continue to live in a state of denial and ignorance about the fact that Islam had come to represent all the values that are incompatible with human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or, I could face reality and recognize Islam as a serious threat to all I hold dear and value in the world.

No; a rational, healthy fear of Islam's barbaric medievalism and its desire to subjugate the entire human race under the yoke of its god is perfectly appropriate and continually justified by the fanatical behavior of millions of Muslims everywhere on the planet.

This is not Islamophobia; this is common sense; and as Hitchens's column makes clear, the intent of this crazy UN resolution serves only to advance Islam's clearly stated goal of subjugating the world's population to its rule.

So, getting back to Kay's pertinent question in his column about Wilders: If we permit the excoriation of totalitarian cults created by modern dictators, why do we stigmatize (and even criminalize) the excoriation of arguably similar notions when they happen to be attributed to a 7th-century prophet?

Answering that question is absolutely critical to understanding the reasons why the west appears to be so willing to commit cultural suicide in order to accommodate an ideology and a religion determined to destroy it.

Friday, May 06, 2011


The White House had no problem declaring a "mission accomplished" today with reports of the creation of new jobs:
U.S. private employers shrugged off high energy prices to add jobs at the fastest pace in five years in April, pointing to underlying strength in the economy, even as the jobless rate rose to 9.0 percent.

Private sector hiring, including a big jump in the retail sector, boosted overall nonfarm payrolls by 244,000, the largest increase in 11 months, the Labor Department said on Friday. Economists had expected a gain of only 186,000....

The White House welcomed the report, which it said was a sign the jobless rate would soon recede.

I hope they're right, but they keep saying things like that; gloating almost when any statistic gives even the mereist hint of a suggestion of a possiblity that the dark days of the economy are over.

Nevertheless, in spite of the addition of these jobs, the jobless rate remains high at 9%.

Then there's this little reality check to consider...
The good news is that the economy added about 268,000 new jobs. The bad news is that 25 percent (62,000) were from McDonald’s. That’s honorable and respectable work, of course. But consider this: Had the Obama administration not granted McD’s a waiver from having to abide by the law, it might not have added all those workers. And if the company had added the jobs anyway, they all would have been jobs without health insurance since the company was going to stop providing benefits without the waiver.

And, Peter Kirsanov has a question for Brave Sir Robin:
In January 2009, you warned that if Congress didn’t pass your $800 billion stimulus bill the unemployment rate today would be approximately 8.5 percent. You claimed that if Congress did pass the stimulus bill the unemployment rate would never climb above 8 percent, and today’s unemployment rate would be approximately 6.5 percent.

Today your administration announced that the unemployment rate is 9 percent.

Why didn’t that $800 billion work as promised? How much more do you contend you need to spend to get the unemployment rate down to 6.5 percent?

[Political cartoons by Lisa Benson]

Thursday, May 05, 2011


Obama the Wonderful has decided not to release any photos of the dead Bin Laden--not for evidence, and especially not for "gloating" or "spiking the football".

How very upper class of him. How civilized. How completely absurd.

John J. Miller observes:
Perhaps releasing the photos of a dead Osama bin Laden is a bad idea. Maybe they would reveal an operational detail that’s better left undiscovered. If this is the case, of course, President Obama (or someone else) could just say so and the controversy mostly would vanish.

What bugs me is the metaphor: Obama says the United States won’t put out the pictures because “we don’t need to spike the football.” By this, he means that America shouldn’t gloat over the death of the world’s most-wanted terrorist. But if a police department releases gruesome photos of a shooting, does it “spike the football”? No, it simply provides evidence. It has nothing to do with gloating–and neither do the calls to release these pictures.

Separately, spiking the football is a great sport-specific ritual. The NCAA may frown upon it, but as end-zone celebrations go, this is about as modest as they come, like slapping the hand of the third-base coach on a home-run trot. I wish the president hadn’t implied there was something unbecoming about it.

Well, don't forget, John, that Obama is superior to the rest of us. He's beyond all this talk of war and such.

I now have sincere doubts about Obama's role in the entire operation. I suspect he had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to actually make an operational decision. His behavior and his picture in the previous post would seem to confirm that he was most likely a bit player, or a bench warmer.

Let's face it: HE DIDN'T SCORE THE TOUCHDOWN. That's why he doesn't want to spike the football. He probably doesn't even feel like he's on the same team.

Michael Moore's response is classic (can't link to it because it has a virus). He claims Bin Laded wasn't "killed", he was "executed". My response: OK. And your point is???

As for all those questions about whether we should be celebrating the death of a terrorist, my response: Hell yes.

Did we violate international law? WTF cares?

Where does this sort of silliness come from? I question the survival instincts of all these holier-than-thou-moral-beyond-reason-or-sanity people and suspect that they are actually morally,culturally, and individually suicidal--or at least in the throes of a powerful death wish.

Meanwhile, let's celebrate shall we?

Tuesday, May 03, 2011


I am perfectly willing to give Obama a significant amount of credit for authorizing the kill on Bin Laden. But please, enough is enough.

Why is HIS bravery; HIS gutsiness in the face of danger; HIS part in this operation being so overly emphasized and overplayed???

Did you know that Navy SEALs were also involved?
According to another one of those White House briefings of reporters designed to suck up all available credit for good news, President Obama's homeland security advisor reveals that it was a really tense time in the air-conditioned White House as unidentified U.S. Navy SEALs closed in on the world's most wanted man after midnight a half a world away.

"Minutes passed like days," says John Brennan, who bravely stood with press secretary Jay Carney before reporters and TV cameras today chronicling his boss' weekend heroics.

The heavily-armed commandos flying in a quartet of darkened Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters more than 100 miles into Pakistan were probably listening to their iPods and discussing the NFL draft.

"The concern was that bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation," said Obama's Sherlock Holmes. So U.S. troops were prepared "for all contingencies."

In fact, this weekend was such a tense time in the White House that Obama only got in nine holes of golf. But he still managed to deliver his joke script to the White House Correspondents Assn. dinner Saturday evening.

Sunday was, Brennan revealed to his eager audience, "probably one of the most anxiety-filled periods of times in the lives of the people assembled here." Poor poor bureaucrats. Extra Tums all around. Did someone order dinner?

And look! The only picture released from that "tense time" is this one:

Tense times indeed for the Narcissist in Chief and his staff.

Could we get a glimpse of the REAL heroes in all this do you think?

Sunday, May 01, 2011


Which old witch? That Bin Laden witch.

My professional opinion? YAY!
My personal opinion? YAY!

Wonderful news...let's hope that his will be a major game-changer. And even if it's not, it's still important psychologically. There's a lot to be said for persistence.