This is one of the reasons I am glad I don't live on the Texas gulf coast anymore. During the 15 years I lived in the Clear Lake area and worked at NASA and the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, there was not a single summer that I didn't worry and obsess about hurricanes. That is just a routine part of your life when you live on the Gulf Coast.
One year, we weathered a Category I in our one story house, which fortunately did not flood. We evacuated to Dallas for a Category 3 another year. Many times, we just watched anxiously as various hurricanes tracked north or south of us along the coast.
All of Texas along the Gulf floods at the slightest opportunity. Geologically it used to be part of the Gulf not that long ago. It doesn't even take a hurricane most of the time--just some heavy rain--for the Gulf to reclaim the land.
The University I worked at in Galveston is on a small island connected to the mainland by one major bridge. Galveston was the site of one of the worse natural disasters in the history of the US-- the hurricane of 1900 -- that killed between 6000 - 12000 people then; and most of the city had to be rebuilt. Cooky Oberg, a journalist and close friend of mine wrote this article last week on the lessons we could learn about Katrina from that disaster. Galveston, interestingly, is also the site of the second largest Mardi Gras celebration in the U.S., second only to New Orleans.
One of the things I most certainly don't miss since we moved to Ann Arbor, is the yearly angst related to tracking hurricanes; preparing for hurricanes; and even thinking about hurricanes.
Hurricane Rita which is just now hitting the Florida Keys, has a projected path in the next few days whose exact center at the moment is Galveston.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The World's Favorite Victims
Reading this piece by Diana West was an eye-opener--not that I have ever had anything but contempt for the thugs who run the Palestinian Authority; but I had hoped that the Bush Administration would begin to demand some accountability from these con artists; and terminate the financial support that the America government gives to Palestinian terrorism.
It is interesting to note that the amount of Arab aid to the Palestinians approaches....zero. I guess they consider their psychological support to the Palestinians to be more important than sharing their oil revenues.
If the Bush Administration wants to be consistent, it will start making some demands from the PA and make any further financial aid contingent on the response.
Of course, I can hear the international outcry/outrage against the US if such a horrible, terrible thing were to happen. The Palestinians are, after all, the everyone's favorite victims.
The worse aspects of their behavior continue to be supported--even encouraged. It appears that no matter how violent; how insane and self-destructive; how corrupt and filled with hate they are; they will continue to wallow in the victimhood they have created and the world has reinforced.
Let's review some basic principles of behavior modification.
Behavior Modification therapy is defined as the use of rewards or punishments to reduce or eliminate problematic behavior. The therapy is designed to extinguish or inhibit abnormal or maladaptive behavior by reinforcing desired behavior and extinguishing undesired behavior.
The key to a successful program of behavior modification is consistency in applying both the negative and positive reinforcers of behavior. If positive reinforcement is applied even when the negative behavior continues, it can hardly reduce those behaviors. Continuing to give the Palestinian Authority huge financial rewards despite their unwillingness to rein in the extreme elements of their society is clearly counterproductive.
Secretary of State Condi Rice may have been trying to give some positive reinforcement to the Palestinians by her encouraging remarks after the Israeli pullout; but the U.S. must also be prepared to implement negative reinforcers if the suicide bombing and terrorist behavior continues. In other words, the U.S. must now make financial support to the Palistinians contingent on their behavior.
Israel, by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza as a goodwill gesture in the interests of peace, has unfortunately also given the Palestinians a huge positive reinforcement for their intractable homicidal behavior. It is entirely possible that this gesture of goodwill will only excacerbate Palestinian violence, rather than extinguishing it.
Much depends on the maturity of the Palestinian people, and how they choose to deal with this gopportunity to escape from perpetual victimhood. The ball is in their court.
Maybe it was that last $50 million that George W. Bush forked over to the Palestinian Authority in May that made the Gaza transfer between Israel and the PA this week so ... What was Condoleezza Rice's word for the lawless Palestinian stampede of looting and desecration that erupted after the Israeli withdrawal?
"Successful."
That is, something must have sweetened the deal to make Israeli-Palestinian coordination on this territorial handover so very ... How did Ms. Rice describe the dynamic that led to the flags of jihad terrorism being hoisted into a sky darkened by burning synagogues?
"Effective."
Successful and effective? Not everyone's first reaction, but maybe it all depends on what Ms. Rice was hoping for. The fact that burning synagogues failed even to singe the Secretary of State's assessment of diplomatic success and effective statecraft is nothing less than chilling. But maybe it reflects our arrival at a cold, new reality that calls into question administration attitudes toward longstanding American motives and goals in the Middle East.
Since the Oslo "peace process" began in 1993, Palestinians have received more than $1.5 billion from the United States -- more aid, as the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out in August, than from any other single country. Not that other countries, mainly European ones, haven't been generous. The Atlantic Monthly's David Samuels tallied up post-Oslo P aid at $7 billion, estimating that as much as half of that money was siphoned off by Yasir Arafat and his cronies. Still the bucks flow. This year alone, the Chronicle reported, the United States will double last year's $275 million PA aid package, paying out $550 million (not including the $50 million handed out in May, as near as I can tell). In July, even as jihadis struck the London Underground, the Group of Eight countries couldn't pile up money for the PA fast enough, agreeing by 2008 to present its government -- which by then could very well include landslide-elected terrorists from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, whatever -- with $9 billion.
It is interesting to note that the amount of Arab aid to the Palestinians approaches....zero. I guess they consider their psychological support to the Palestinians to be more important than sharing their oil revenues.
If the Bush Administration wants to be consistent, it will start making some demands from the PA and make any further financial aid contingent on the response.
Of course, I can hear the international outcry/outrage against the US if such a horrible, terrible thing were to happen. The Palestinians are, after all, the everyone's favorite victims.
The worse aspects of their behavior continue to be supported--even encouraged. It appears that no matter how violent; how insane and self-destructive; how corrupt and filled with hate they are; they will continue to wallow in the victimhood they have created and the world has reinforced.
Let's review some basic principles of behavior modification.
Behavior Modification therapy is defined as the use of rewards or punishments to reduce or eliminate problematic behavior. The therapy is designed to extinguish or inhibit abnormal or maladaptive behavior by reinforcing desired behavior and extinguishing undesired behavior.
The key to a successful program of behavior modification is consistency in applying both the negative and positive reinforcers of behavior. If positive reinforcement is applied even when the negative behavior continues, it can hardly reduce those behaviors. Continuing to give the Palestinian Authority huge financial rewards despite their unwillingness to rein in the extreme elements of their society is clearly counterproductive.
Secretary of State Condi Rice may have been trying to give some positive reinforcement to the Palestinians by her encouraging remarks after the Israeli pullout; but the U.S. must also be prepared to implement negative reinforcers if the suicide bombing and terrorist behavior continues. In other words, the U.S. must now make financial support to the Palistinians contingent on their behavior.
Israel, by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza as a goodwill gesture in the interests of peace, has unfortunately also given the Palestinians a huge positive reinforcement for their intractable homicidal behavior. It is entirely possible that this gesture of goodwill will only excacerbate Palestinian violence, rather than extinguishing it.
Much depends on the maturity of the Palestinian people, and how they choose to deal with this gopportunity to escape from perpetual victimhood. The ball is in their court.
Monday, September 19, 2005
The Gates of Vienna are Open
Dymphna and The Baron are on a roll! Go over to the Gates of Vienna and read about the Non-Aggression Pact of September 11, 2067 and the Caliph of Ice Cream.
Great stuff.
Great stuff.
Bill Clinton Has No Class and Soon Will Have No Legacy
Once again, Bill Clinton demonstrates that the best defense is a good offense. In an apparent attempt to protect his own dismal legacy, Bill has come out swinging against Bush.
He also explicitly stated that his adminsitration would have done a better job on Katrina.
What very unclassy behavior for an ex-President to engage in. He did do a better job on Katrina...no wait, that was Monica.
For some psychoanalytical observations, we turn to Shrinkwrapped :
I concur with my colleague, and will go one step further and say that Berger and Gorelick were both part of an attempt to make sure certain information about the Clinton Adminstration's collosal failure with regard to dealing with and enabling Islamic terrorism remained outside of history.
Finally, The Anchoress also has some psychological insight on former Presidnet Clinton, probably one of the most pathetic presidents in US history--all form and no substance. Here is her conclusion, but read the entire piece on "Bill Clinton's Heartbreak":
Meanwhile, the Lunatic Fringe manages to go berserk again and engage in their usual high level of political discourse.
I will be very interested in comparing the legacies of Clinton and Bush and how their respective presidencies fare in history. I don't think things bode very well for Bill.
UPDATE: Bill is fisked by Chester. Worth a read.
Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.
Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."
The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme.
He also explicitly stated that his adminsitration would have done a better job on Katrina.
What very unclassy behavior for an ex-President to engage in. He did do a better job on Katrina...no wait, that was Monica.
For some psychoanalytical observations, we turn to Shrinkwrapped :
Maybe the Able Danger story has been overly hyped by the blogosphere (in direct proportion to the lack of interest by the LMSM*), however, it seems that as time goes on more and more information leaks out confirming aspects of the Able Danger as reported. If the Congressional Investigations blow the lid off of Able Danger, it is impossible to see the LMSM hiding the fact that this was a blunder of Titanic proportions and that it occurred under the Clinton watch, aided and abetted by such luminaries as Sandy Berger and Jamie Gorelick.
Which raise the question in my mind: Was this in the back of Bill Clinton's mind when he launched his infantile and unprecedented attack on Bush over the weekend?
I concur with my colleague, and will go one step further and say that Berger and Gorelick were both part of an attempt to make sure certain information about the Clinton Adminstration's collosal failure with regard to dealing with and enabling Islamic terrorism remained outside of history.
Finally, The Anchoress also has some psychological insight on former Presidnet Clinton, probably one of the most pathetic presidents in US history--all form and no substance. Here is her conclusion, but read the entire piece on "Bill Clinton's Heartbreak":
The Able Danger story is suggesting that warnings went unheeded regarding the attack on the USS COLE, and that enormous amounts of documentation - “2.5 terabytes” - as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the Library of Congress,” have been destroyed by order of…someone. Witnesses want to testify, the Judiciary committee does not want the testimony to be public.
The story has been buried due to Katrina news and Katrina Bush-blaming, Clinton news and Clinton Bush-blaming, and an unsurprising move by many in the mainstream press to keep the story relagated to page 34 of section B, below the fold. Now, with public hearings set for Wednesday, perhaps all of this verbage from President Clinton is nothing more than a pre-emptive strike - a way to minimize any damage from Able Danger by saying it is all “a spiteful response to Clinton’s measured critiques.”
But all the misdirection in the world can’t keep a true story of malfeasance, mismanagement and political paralysis from finally breaking the surface, and maybe that - more than anything - accounts for so much that seems sad and crazy and overwrought in American politics, these days.
Meanwhile, the Lunatic Fringe manages to go berserk again and engage in their usual high level of political discourse.
I will be very interested in comparing the legacies of Clinton and Bush and how their respective presidencies fare in history. I don't think things bode very well for Bill.
UPDATE: Bill is fisked by Chester. Worth a read.
Axis Of Evil Update
The Washington Post today has an article that suggests that Iran's new President, in his speech to the UN may have inadvertantly made the international community understand why Bush included this insane oountry in the "Axis of Evil":
One hopes the international community will now get off its duff and do something about this growing threat. Sadly, I suspect that more denial, appeasement and delaying will be the results of this new "international awareness"--especially at the UN.
And on the second front of the Axis of Evil, we have this news:
Of course, the really good time to have turned it off would have been in the late 90's when they first promised to do so. It brings to mind the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Unless there are immediate steps on Kim Jong Il's part to demonstrate that he is in earnest, I think we should assume that he is lying, as he has done so many times before. I completely agree with Scrappleface on this issue.
The incredible naivete in the face of true evil on the part of the international community never ceases to amaze me. Don't expect that reasoned discussions, negotiations and "international sanctions" (if they could ever decide to actually commit themselves to such an action) will have much of an effect on either of these country's leaders. They are both tyrants, and react to such behavior with contempt and dissimulation, since they regard it as a sign of weakness which can be exploited and manipulated.
George Bush was spot on in his 2002 State of the Union speech:
With either Iran or Korea, the price of indifference--or naivete--will undoubtedly be catastrophic.
UPDATE: From Cox and Forkum - a perfect addition to the post above!
UPDATE II: Ah yes. I knew the North Korea story was too good to be true. Apparently they are demanding nuclear reactors before they quit their program. I believe this was the same ploy they used in the 90's. When they got what they wanted from us, they reneged on the deal. (9/20/05 10:04 am)
During his 25 minutes Saturday, Ahmadinejad delivered what began as a sermon praising the prophets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism and then descended into anti-American vitriol, conspiracy theories and threats.
He expressed doubt that the deadly attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, were really carried out by terrorists. He said Americans had brought the devastation of Hurricane Katrina upon themselves and that the U.S. military was purposely poisoning its own troops in Iraq.
There were quotes from the Koran, angry finger pointing and attacks on Israel interlaced with talk of justice and tranquility. There was a staunch defense of Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy, and to enrich uranium to fuel that program. There were no new proposals and little detail about old ones that were reoffered.
One hopes the international community will now get off its duff and do something about this growing threat. Sadly, I suspect that more denial, appeasement and delaying will be the results of this new "international awareness"--especially at the UN.
And on the second front of the Axis of Evil, we have this news:
BEIJING - North Korea on Monday agreed to stop building nuclear weapons and allow international inspections in exchange for energy aid, economic cooperation and security assurances, in a first step toward disarmament after two years of six-nation talks.
The chief U.S. envoy to the talks praised the breakthrough as a “win-win situation” and “good agreement for all of us.” But he promptly urged Pyongyang to make good on its promises by ending operations at its main nuclear facility at Yongbyon.
“What is the purpose of operating it at this point?” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. “The time to turn it off would be about now.”
Of course, the really good time to have turned it off would have been in the late 90's when they first promised to do so. It brings to mind the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Unless there are immediate steps on Kim Jong Il's part to demonstrate that he is in earnest, I think we should assume that he is lying, as he has done so many times before. I completely agree with Scrappleface on this issue.
The incredible naivete in the face of true evil on the part of the international community never ceases to amaze me. Don't expect that reasoned discussions, negotiations and "international sanctions" (if they could ever decide to actually commit themselves to such an action) will have much of an effect on either of these country's leaders. They are both tyrants, and react to such behavior with contempt and dissimulation, since they regard it as a sign of weakness which can be exploited and manipulated.
George Bush was spot on in his 2002 State of the Union speech:
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
With either Iran or Korea, the price of indifference--or naivete--will undoubtedly be catastrophic.
UPDATE: From Cox and Forkum - a perfect addition to the post above!
UPDATE II: Ah yes. I knew the North Korea story was too good to be true. Apparently they are demanding nuclear reactors before they quit their program. I believe this was the same ploy they used in the 90's. When they got what they wanted from us, they reneged on the deal. (9/20/05 10:04 am)
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Alternative Reality
A must-read piece at The Belmont Club-- "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose":
I agree with Wretchard, that some of the West's journalists and opinion-makers unconsciously inhabit this alternative reality. But there are, in my opionion, far too many who deliberately and consciously live in this unreal space-- it is the same space they inabited when the US was fighting communism; it is the same space they inabit as socialists; anti-capitalists; and antiwar sloganeers.
In other words, it the the alternate reality where all those who are opposed to economic and political freedom choose to live, maintaining their fantasy that they know what is true and right and good for all people. In their dreams, they still live in the worker's paradise envisioned by Marx. They have been unmoved by its translation in the real world into death camps; forced labor camps; conquest; tyranny and human misery.
It is possible to reach those who simply unconsciously parrot the slogans and behaviors of the failed ideologies of the Left. They may still be amenable to reason if one can engage their minds.
Those who deliberately and consciously are trying to destroy America; destroy all hope in the world for Freedom and self-determination --they long ago abandoned their minds to serve the god worshipped by tyrants everywhere.
Of all the weapons of the insurgency, it is their ability to set the public terms of the debate that has proven the most powerful. Their model of fighting a combined media-arms campaign has created an alternative reality which Western opinion-makers unconsciously inhabit. The questions asked by a New York Times of Condoleeza Rice in a recent interview speak directly from this point of view.Q: Can you make the case that international terror, global terror, is less of a threat now than it was four years ago?
Q: If you take a snapshot right now, is the world more dangerous than it was before?
Q: How can you look at Iraq and continue to feel that the trend lines are moving in the direction that you want to see?
I agree with Wretchard, that some of the West's journalists and opinion-makers unconsciously inhabit this alternative reality. But there are, in my opionion, far too many who deliberately and consciously live in this unreal space-- it is the same space they inabited when the US was fighting communism; it is the same space they inabit as socialists; anti-capitalists; and antiwar sloganeers.
In other words, it the the alternate reality where all those who are opposed to economic and political freedom choose to live, maintaining their fantasy that they know what is true and right and good for all people. In their dreams, they still live in the worker's paradise envisioned by Marx. They have been unmoved by its translation in the real world into death camps; forced labor camps; conquest; tyranny and human misery.
It is possible to reach those who simply unconsciously parrot the slogans and behaviors of the failed ideologies of the Left. They may still be amenable to reason if one can engage their minds.
Those who deliberately and consciously are trying to destroy America; destroy all hope in the world for Freedom and self-determination --they long ago abandoned their minds to serve the god worshipped by tyrants everywhere.
Hospital Blogging
Sorry for the light posting today--I had emergency surgery early this morning. But I'm doing well and posting this from my hospital bed. I've had severe epistaxis (nosebleed) all week, and all the conservative procedures failed late last night. Everything went well and I'll be out (with a little luck) tomorrow.
Meanwhile, I finally put up today's Carnival, so scroll down.
Meanwhile, I finally put up today's Carnival, so scroll down.
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES !
Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Only one post entry per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!1. Do as I say, not as I do.... Sierra Club/ Huffington version.
2. Sacriligious desserts? Just when I think a certain religion can't get more insane, they surprise me.
3. And speaking of insanity in certain religions, apparently now a hijab is mandatory for all people in photographs. Inccredible! Shades of the Soviet Union.
4. The conclusions of this study are just a bit suspect...the idea of a "global social policy" gives me the chills.
5. Job opportunities galore. Exemplifies the pathetic state of the Left, doesn't it?
6. And here is an example of the pathetic state of the fiscal conservative Right. Tom Delay should contact Cato for some ideas.
7. Somehow I'm not surprised at this. (hat tip: Sigmund,Carl & Alfred)
8. A "veneer of neutrality"? HaHaHaHaHaHaHa. This blog must be a joke. Even if it's for real.
9. Dave Barry muses on the confirmation hearings. Meanwhile, the Master of all Evil has come up with another dastardly plot!
10. Perhaps he's hoping to find something profound or even sane? Maybe Duke will offer a visiting Professorship?
11. Bookstore banning books?
12. Those fun-loving, exhuberant Palestinians!
13. Hamas Militant Moms: On the Go, and Looking Great!!!
14. John Paul or Benedict? Which are you? (hat tip: The Anchoress)
15. That they even considered the possibility is unbelievable. But, I hear that Gays would not have done well in these courts.
16. The MSM neglected to mention this little tidbit.
17. Uh-Oh! Another scary dip in the polls!
18. Katrina was the bringer of blessings for Democratic Leadership, it seems.
19. Will wonders never cease? Something they can't blame him for. But I bet they will anyway.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
The Lunatic Fringe
Every day we are witness to the growing insanity of the hysterical minions of the Left. Here are two simple and straightforward examples.
LGF posts a DU rant:
Then there's this post about Donna Brazile being a "Stockholm Syndrome Victim" because she wants to support Bush's plan to rebuild NOLA:
Let's consider for a moment the intensity of the emotions expressed in the above two posts. The sheer intensity of hatred (despite the crocodile tears of empathy for Brazile in the second quote) borders on an almost monomania regarding the supposed "evil" of GWB and all Republicans. Both contain explict calls for violence and force to impose their points of view. One is concerned that this hasn't happened yet. Both express their confusion about how America could possibly stay together (or be a "family") and wonder why it hasn't collapsed due to the injustices and outrages they can so clearly see.
All this reminds me of a severely paranoid patient I had a few years ago. He came to my office, a bundle of outrage so intense that he was barely coherent. How could the the FBI and CIA get away with planting electrodes in his brain? Wasn't there someone who could stop this? Why was I permitting them to tap into his thoughts and broadcast them on TV? Didn't I realize that they were abusing him? Didn't I see that they intended to kill him? THEY were the one's who needed to see a psychiatrist! What, he demanded, was I going to do about it?
I mildly suggested that perhaps we could try to understand why he believed these awful things to be true, and that he might feel better if I could help him see if he might be misinterpreting some things. (What can I say? I was young. Back then, I thought you could reason with paranoid delusions.)
He, of course, became even more enraged. It was clear to him that I must be a part of the conspiracy! In fact, now that he thought about it, he had been subtly maneuvered to come to see me. I WAS AN AGENT OF THE CIA!
He ran from the room, screaming this very loudly. The police picked him up a few days later, when he tried to break into the local FBI offices to steal his "file".
He was hospitalized involuntarily (rather than arrested) and I understand that his paranoia subsided after appropriate treatment.
Sadly, the paranoia and delusions exemplified in the above two quotations are probably not amenable to treatment. They are part of a self-induced personality disrder, called "Acquired Narcissism" (although there are plenty of others in their mental world who are clear-cut Narcissists).
People with any type of narcissism believe their feelings and beliefs should be adopted by the world in general--if not voluntarily, then they are prepared to use violence. They believe that their needs are the center of everyone's universe. When confronted by reality, they become enraged and frustrated that it won't conform to their will. It makes them want to destroy reality. Like petulant children, they want what they want when they want it or they'll threaten to do something horrible to you.
The paranoid statements quoted above demonstrate that these people are the ones not capable of living in a democracy--unless they happen to be in the majority. Then everything is fine. When they have to endure policies they don't happen to agree with then they must project that inner rage and frustration and OUILA! It become the evil of the...Republicans! Or...Bush! Or...just about anyone that prevents them from getting their way.
These people rarely come to treatment because theirs is a world view that they want desperately to believe. Unlike my paranoid patient above, who was terrified by his perceptions--they were "ego-dystonic", meaning that they were incompatible or inconsistent with his sense of himself; our Leftist paranoids find their views of Republicans as evil and their desires to violently make everyone believe as they do extremely validating and even comforting on a conscious level (we refer to this as "ego-syntonic", or compatible/consistent with their ego or sense of self).
If they believe these things are true, then they do not have to trouble themselves to think or to take responsiblity for their own emotional destructiveness. They don't have to check the facts because facts would only get in the way of how they "feel" things are or should be.
Remember their confusion at why America still stands? Why Americans put up with "Republican abuse"? Why so many Americans "still support the ape"?
Simple. Most Americans are incredibly and boringly normal, sane, and have an abundance of common sense; and hence are not prone to the narcissistic extremes exhibited by the lunatic fringe of society.
LGF posts a DU rant:
mopaul (1000 posts)
Sat Sep-17-05 06:40 AM
what the f*ck america? what the f*ck?
what’s keeping it from utterly collapsing? you can only put duct tape and lipstick on it for so long before it sinks asunder. how can it continue as if nothing were wrong? why aren’t people rioting yet? why do so many STILL support the ape? where are the f*cking democrats? how is it all propped up and held together? what fog is blinding so many millions to the actual state of the union? what mind trick? what curse?how long can it stand before it finally implodes like the twin towers? not much longer i’m afraid. how long before the distracted masses have that ‘what the f*ck’? moment? what invisible string binds it all together still? what hypnotic trance are we in that prevents us from surrounding the white house and ridding it of the cockroaches?dead people are floating down the streets of america, and we all go to church on sunday like robots. what the f*ck america? what the f*ck?
Then there's this post about Donna Brazile being a "Stockholm Syndrome Victim" because she wants to support Bush's plan to rebuild NOLA:
Let me be plain. There isn't a SINGLE shred of evidence that George Bush and his corrupt crony government has the capability of rebuilding New Orleans. None. To argue that we should join with him now, and that somehow together this will cause the madness to stop is a sign of severe psychological disorder.
You know what Donna, I can't imagine what you're going through right now, your hometown utterly destroyed and your friends, family, and community scattered to the winds. I won't pretend to know how that feels. I can't. I've seen the overlay maps showing the amount of flooding in New Orleans relative to other large cities, like the entire city of Boston and surrounding communities completely submerged. I can't conceive of what that might mean.
But as devastated as you feel right now, as heartbroken as I can imagine you are, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did George Bush speak from the heart on Monday August 29th at the country club he was visiting as the levees broke? Did he speak from the heart on Tuesday August 30th from California talking about VJ day? Did his government speak from the heart on Thursday September 1st when they told the nation that they didn't know about the people in the convention center?
Did they speak from the heart when they granted no-bid contracts to Halliburton? Did they speak from the heart when they suspended the prevailing wage? Did they speak from the heart when they told us, once again, that even an epic disaster such as this doesn't warrant raising taxes even for a moment?
I would like to believe that this country is one big family. It isn't. Does a family bash their gay members like George Bush did to win an election? Does a family not even sit and listen to a grieving mother whose son was killed as a result of the President's actions? When choosing who will protect them, does a family pick the most incompetent member to lead the charge?
Until we stop letting Republicans abuse us and stand up for ourselves, the madness will never end. After reading what Ms. Brazile wrote today, it is clear to me that this won't happen in Washington anytime soon - it will have to be forced onto Washington in a vast intervention.
Let's consider for a moment the intensity of the emotions expressed in the above two posts. The sheer intensity of hatred (despite the crocodile tears of empathy for Brazile in the second quote) borders on an almost monomania regarding the supposed "evil" of GWB and all Republicans. Both contain explict calls for violence and force to impose their points of view. One is concerned that this hasn't happened yet. Both express their confusion about how America could possibly stay together (or be a "family") and wonder why it hasn't collapsed due to the injustices and outrages they can so clearly see.
All this reminds me of a severely paranoid patient I had a few years ago. He came to my office, a bundle of outrage so intense that he was barely coherent. How could the the FBI and CIA get away with planting electrodes in his brain? Wasn't there someone who could stop this? Why was I permitting them to tap into his thoughts and broadcast them on TV? Didn't I realize that they were abusing him? Didn't I see that they intended to kill him? THEY were the one's who needed to see a psychiatrist! What, he demanded, was I going to do about it?
I mildly suggested that perhaps we could try to understand why he believed these awful things to be true, and that he might feel better if I could help him see if he might be misinterpreting some things. (What can I say? I was young. Back then, I thought you could reason with paranoid delusions.)
He, of course, became even more enraged. It was clear to him that I must be a part of the conspiracy! In fact, now that he thought about it, he had been subtly maneuvered to come to see me. I WAS AN AGENT OF THE CIA!
He ran from the room, screaming this very loudly. The police picked him up a few days later, when he tried to break into the local FBI offices to steal his "file".
He was hospitalized involuntarily (rather than arrested) and I understand that his paranoia subsided after appropriate treatment.
Sadly, the paranoia and delusions exemplified in the above two quotations are probably not amenable to treatment. They are part of a self-induced personality disrder, called "Acquired Narcissism" (although there are plenty of others in their mental world who are clear-cut Narcissists).
People with any type of narcissism believe their feelings and beliefs should be adopted by the world in general--if not voluntarily, then they are prepared to use violence. They believe that their needs are the center of everyone's universe. When confronted by reality, they become enraged and frustrated that it won't conform to their will. It makes them want to destroy reality. Like petulant children, they want what they want when they want it or they'll threaten to do something horrible to you.
The paranoid statements quoted above demonstrate that these people are the ones not capable of living in a democracy--unless they happen to be in the majority. Then everything is fine. When they have to endure policies they don't happen to agree with then they must project that inner rage and frustration and OUILA! It become the evil of the...Republicans! Or...Bush! Or...just about anyone that prevents them from getting their way.
These people rarely come to treatment because theirs is a world view that they want desperately to believe. Unlike my paranoid patient above, who was terrified by his perceptions--they were "ego-dystonic", meaning that they were incompatible or inconsistent with his sense of himself; our Leftist paranoids find their views of Republicans as evil and their desires to violently make everyone believe as they do extremely validating and even comforting on a conscious level (we refer to this as "ego-syntonic", or compatible/consistent with their ego or sense of self).
If they believe these things are true, then they do not have to trouble themselves to think or to take responsiblity for their own emotional destructiveness. They don't have to check the facts because facts would only get in the way of how they "feel" things are or should be.
Remember their confusion at why America still stands? Why Americans put up with "Republican abuse"? Why so many Americans "still support the ape"?
Simple. Most Americans are incredibly and boringly normal, sane, and have an abundance of common sense; and hence are not prone to the narcissistic extremes exhibited by the lunatic fringe of society.
Don't Let It Be
I read today that Paul McCartney is going to re-record some of the old Beatles songs. I wish him well. I thought I'd rewrite one.
When our nation finds itself trouble, Pelosi whines hysterically,
crying that it's our fault, let it be.
And in our hour of darkness Dean is standing before you and me,
screaming that it's our fault, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
The Democrats just scream hysterically-y-y.
When all the poor and hopeless people living in the world agree,
it's time to stand up and oppose all tyranny.
For though they are oppressed, there is still a chance that they could be free,
But Moveon wants appeasement: let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be.....Let's bash Bush instead, says Kennedy.
And when the night descends upon us, and we need a light to see,
Michael Moore will holler, let it be.
He'd rather be in darkness and pretend that it is just PC
But Zarqawi doesn't plan to let him be.
I wake up to the sound of music, mother Sheehan comes to me,
screeching foolish slogans, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, .....
LET'S NOT LET IT BE, SHALL WE?
When our nation finds itself trouble, Pelosi whines hysterically,
crying that it's our fault, let it be.
And in our hour of darkness Dean is standing before you and me,
screaming that it's our fault, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
The Democrats just scream hysterically-y-y.
When all the poor and hopeless people living in the world agree,
it's time to stand up and oppose all tyranny.
For though they are oppressed, there is still a chance that they could be free,
But Moveon wants appeasement: let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be.....Let's bash Bush instead, says Kennedy.
And when the night descends upon us, and we need a light to see,
Michael Moore will holler, let it be.
He'd rather be in darkness and pretend that it is just PC
But Zarqawi doesn't plan to let him be.
I wake up to the sound of music, mother Sheehan comes to me,
screeching foolish slogans, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, .....
LET'S NOT LET IT BE, SHALL WE?
Friday, September 16, 2005
Invisible on the Radar
Katrina--was there anything that went right? Well, yes it did. Quite a lot actually.
And, who were these first responders?
That's right. The Louisiana National Guard; the Coast Guard; the US Air Force; and the US Navy.
No wonder the MSM didn't notice! No wonder Nancy Pelosi and her gang; Moveon.org and its minions; Hollywood; and all those antiwar protestors fawning over Mother Sheehan didn't notice!
All of these organizations are completely invisible on their radar screen.
Largely invisible to the media's radar, a broad-based rescue effort by federal, state and local first responders pulled 25,000 to 50,000 people from harm's way in floodwaters in the city. Ironically, FEMA's role, for good or ill, was essentially non-existent, as was the Governor's and the Mayor's.
And, who were these first responders?
The Connecticut Post, of all places, gives the best overview of the operation in a column by Peter Urban. He points out that a single chopper of the Louisiana National Guard, on Monday after the storm hit, pulled some 250 people to safety; there were 16 other 30- passenger Black Hawks in the unit that had been stripped of seating to fly similar rescue missions. If the other choppers only saved half as many people, that one unit alone pulled out 2000 people a day.
But the Louisiana Blackhawks weren't the only rescuers. The Coast Guard was flying as soon as the hurricane passed on Monday as well and had already accounted for several thousand victims by Wednesday.
The Air Force reported 1,300 rescues and some 14,000 "transported" by Sept. 4.
By Tuesday night, the Navy's Bataan hospital ship-cited for its inaction by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--in fact had five choppers flying rescue missions and had pulled out several hundred people.
But those weren't the only helicopters flying. Overall, 113 choppers were in operation around New Orleans by Sept. 1, according to The Armed Forces Press Service.
That's right. The Louisiana National Guard; the Coast Guard; the US Air Force; and the US Navy.
No wonder the MSM didn't notice! No wonder Nancy Pelosi and her gang; Moveon.org and its minions; Hollywood; and all those antiwar protestors fawning over Mother Sheehan didn't notice!
All of these organizations are completely invisible on their radar screen.
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
First Place
Memorial to Millions of Dead Jews Offensive to Muslims The Sundries Shack
Second Place - A Two-Way Tie!
Regression Dr. Sanity
Sheepdogs Driving the Bus Gates of Vienna
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
First Place
Tribes Eject! Eject! Eject! (A truly extraordinary piece of writing)
Second Place - Another Two-Way Tie!
Fake Transcript of Roberts Hearings, Day TwoAce of Spades HQ
Michael Moore's Intellectual DishonestyThe Bernoulli Effect
Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site!
Was it Too Much To Ask?
Victor Davis Hanson --always clear and articulate--asks a pertinent question at the end of a great op-ed piece today:
Yes, it was apparently too much to ask.
I just this minute listened to Marvin Kalb opine on Fox News about how Katrina has changed journalism; and that now, journalists are finally willing to question the government!!!! Before this disaster, he contends, their patriotism prevented them from doing so. Before this, he stated with a straight face, journalists could not criticize Bush's leadership. But now that Bush has taken responsibility for everything, apparently it has given carte blanche to journalists to critique the administration.
Is this man out of his mind? What news reports has he been listening to for the last four years? What planet has he been living on?
It is truly amazing that there are none so blind as those who adamantly, determinedly and hysterically refuse to see.
Or, to put it more bluntly, there are none so blind as the majority of journalistic talking heads who we, the people, had entrusted to bring us the news; but who have instead promoted their own personal ideological agendas and scripts, and failed abysmally at their job in the last four years.
But New Orleans also confirmed how a 24/7 hyper media create and then deflate controversies of the day, from the Aruba embarrassment to Cindy Sheehan's circus.
Thus reports of deaths changed by the hour — not by a magnitude of dozens, but by thousands. New alerts flashed that a toxic soup was nearly lethal to the touch even as we watched rescuers wade through it. We were assured that stagnant water would submerge the city for months, even as our screens showed dry, lighted streets, torrents pumped back out and pools evaporating under scorching heat.
Using its Iraqi template, the wired media's one constant is not amazing human resilience but hyped gloom. Later corrections and downgrades seldom make the headlines like their past blaring inaccuracies.
For all the media's efforts to turn the natural disaster of New Orleans into a racist nightmare, a death knell for one or the other political parties or an indictment of American culture at large, it was none of that at all. What we did endure instead were slick but poorly educated journalists, worried not about truth but about pre-empting their rivals with an ever-more-hysterical story, all in a fuzzy context of political correctness about race, the environment and the war.
Let ghoulish CNN file suit against the government to film all the bloated corpses it can find. Let a pontificating PBS "News-Hour" conduct more televised roundtables with grim-faced elites searching out purported national racism. But few any longer trust a frenzied media whose reporters and commentators continually prove as incompetent as they are disingenuous.
Was it too much to ask reporters to look to history to judge this recovery against other past disasters here and abroad? Could they have strived for accuracy instead of ratings — and at least made sure that the images from their cameras did not refute their own predetermined scripts?
Yes, it was apparently too much to ask.
I just this minute listened to Marvin Kalb opine on Fox News about how Katrina has changed journalism; and that now, journalists are finally willing to question the government!!!! Before this disaster, he contends, their patriotism prevented them from doing so. Before this, he stated with a straight face, journalists could not criticize Bush's leadership. But now that Bush has taken responsibility for everything, apparently it has given carte blanche to journalists to critique the administration.
Is this man out of his mind? What news reports has he been listening to for the last four years? What planet has he been living on?
It is truly amazing that there are none so blind as those who adamantly, determinedly and hysterically refuse to see.
Or, to put it more bluntly, there are none so blind as the majority of journalistic talking heads who we, the people, had entrusted to bring us the news; but who have instead promoted their own personal ideological agendas and scripts, and failed abysmally at their job in the last four years.
ABLE DANGER DOCUMENTS DESTROYED ?
News outlets are reporting that the Able Danger documents were ordered destroyed. From ABC News:
The Strata-Sphere has more.
This is really getting interesting. Stay tuned.
A Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday.
The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.
Weldon declined to identify the employee, citing confidentiality matters. Weldon described the documents as "2.5 terabytes" as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the Library of Congress, he added.
A Senate Judiciary Committee aide said the witnesses for Wednesday hearing had not been finalized and could not confirm Weldon's comments.
Army Maj. Paul Swiergosz, a Pentagon spokesman, said officials have been "fact-finding in earnest for quite some time."
"We've interviewed 80 people involved with Able Danger, combed through hundreds of thousands of documents and millions of e-mails and have still found no documentation of Mohamed Atta," Swiergosz said.
He added that certain data had to be destroyed in accordance with existing regulations regarding "intelligence data on U.S. persons."
Weldon has said that Atta, the mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and three other hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger," which determined they could be members of an al-Qaida cell.
On Wednesday, former members of the Sept. 11 commission dismissed the "Able Danger" assertions. One commissioner, ex-Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said, "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us."
Weldon responded angrily to Gorton's assertions.
"It's absolutely unbelievable that a commission would say this program just didn't exist," Weldon said Thursday.
Pentagon officials said this month they had found three more people who recall an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. Two military officers, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, have come forward to support Weldon's claims.
The Strata-Sphere has more.
This is really getting interesting. Stay tuned.
Risking Heartbreak
Well, God forbid we should defy nature!
I will immediately cease all the activities that I do everyday that defy her absolute supremacy.
Think about it.
Are you willing to stop taking antibiotics or other medications that significantly prolong your life and keep you from dying? Or, would you prefer to accede to nature the first time you get bacterial pneumonia?
Are you willing to used mechanized transportation to travel, or should you revert to using what "nature" intended --your legs?
Are you willing to give up reading books, since "nature" never intended for your eyesight to be supplemented with corrective lenses.
Are you willing to give up all the pain medications that are available? After all, chronic pain is nature's way of making sure you don't have the heartbreak of enjoying life.
Are you willing to deal with the heartbreak entailed in continuing to live, move, and/or see clearly--even if sometimes things don't work out in the best possible way? Is that a risk you are willing to take?
I know I am.
I will immediately cease all the activities that I do everyday that defy her absolute supremacy.
Think about it.
Are you willing to stop taking antibiotics or other medications that significantly prolong your life and keep you from dying? Or, would you prefer to accede to nature the first time you get bacterial pneumonia?
Are you willing to used mechanized transportation to travel, or should you revert to using what "nature" intended --your legs?
Are you willing to give up reading books, since "nature" never intended for your eyesight to be supplemented with corrective lenses.
Are you willing to give up all the pain medications that are available? After all, chronic pain is nature's way of making sure you don't have the heartbreak of enjoying life.
Are you willing to deal with the heartbreak entailed in continuing to live, move, and/or see clearly--even if sometimes things don't work out in the best possible way? Is that a risk you are willing to take?
I know I am.
People Are Smarter Than The MSM Thinks
What a shock to the system -- the MSM system, anyway:
The site has a video link, so go check it out.
And, didn't I mention that the media would overlook the positive poll results from Gallup the other day? Instead, they found polls to support their beliefs. It is like the medical experts called up at a trial. Suprisingly all the prosecutor's medical experts say one thing; while the defense's say the opposite.
I just happen to have the latest Sanity Poll numbers taken from 1,984 likely news readers/viewers:
When asked, "Why in heaven's name do you still trust the MSM outlets to give you fair, objective and balanced reporting?"
-37% said that they think the people presenting the news on TV "looked great!"
-29% said that they read newspapers for the comics and sports alone
-14% admitted that they like to be spoon-fed their opinions and the MSM does a good job in that regard
-12% didn't understand the question
-8% weren't allowed to answer by their parents
This poll has a +/- error of 94%.
There you have it. Obviously, Bush/Rove/Dr.Sanity (take your pick) is trying to manipulate the results of this poll by cleverly and subtly making all the respondents (and questioners) appear to be stupid.
To ABC's Surprise, Katrina Victims Praise Bush and Blame Nagin
Posted by Brent Baker on September 16, 2005 - 00:50.
ABC News producers probably didn't hear what they expected when they sent Dean Reynolds to the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction to President Bush's speech from black evacuees from New Orleans. Instead of denouncing Bush and blaming him for their plight, they praised Bush and blamed local officials. Reynolds asked Connie London: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?" She rejected the premise: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in.” She pointed out: “They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."
Not one of the six people interviewed on camera had a bad word for Bush -- despite Reynolds' best efforts. Reynolds goaded: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?" Brenda Marshall answered, "No, I didn't," prompting Reynolds to marvel to anchor Ted Koppel: "Very little skepticism here.”
Reynolds pressed another woman: “Did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?" She affirmed: "Yes, he was." Reynolds soon wondered who they held culpable for the levee breaks. Unlike the national media, London did not blame supposed Bush-mandated budget cuts: "They've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do."
The site has a video link, so go check it out.
And, didn't I mention that the media would overlook the positive poll results from Gallup the other day? Instead, they found polls to support their beliefs. It is like the medical experts called up at a trial. Suprisingly all the prosecutor's medical experts say one thing; while the defense's say the opposite.
I just happen to have the latest Sanity Poll numbers taken from 1,984 likely news readers/viewers:
When asked, "Why in heaven's name do you still trust the MSM outlets to give you fair, objective and balanced reporting?"
-37% said that they think the people presenting the news on TV "looked great!"
-29% said that they read newspapers for the comics and sports alone
-14% admitted that they like to be spoon-fed their opinions and the MSM does a good job in that regard
-12% didn't understand the question
-8% weren't allowed to answer by their parents
This poll has a +/- error of 94%.
There you have it. Obviously, Bush/Rove/Dr.Sanity (take your pick) is trying to manipulate the results of this poll by cleverly and subtly making all the respondents (and questioners) appear to be stupid.
All The Children Aren't Above Average
ShrinkWrapped has a great post up about the intellectual bankruptcy of the self-esteem movement in education.
This is a pet issue of mine and I wrote about it here:
Of course, psychiatry--particularly "pop" psychiatry and psychology have played a large role in the over-promotion of the self-esteem bandwagon. ShrinkWrapped comments:
This is not only true of children, of course; it is also true of our patients. If we support their self-esteem at the expense of encouraging them to face reality; we do them no favors. Only by weathering the disappointments and hurts in life, do people develop a healthy self esteem, and most importantly, a healthy self.
A place where "all the children are above average" is really a place where all the children know that they are mediocre; and, where they learn to resent excellence in general; and learns to avoid tackling difficult projects so as not to burst the "self esteem bubble" that has been created around them.
Giving children the unconditional love they require in life--no matter whether they are above or below "average"-- is one thing, and it is very important; but every child and every individual has to work independently at their own level to the best of their own ability, to earn their own self-esteem. It can't be handed to them; and it can't be faked for them.
At least, not if you want a healthy child.
This is a pet issue of mine and I wrote about it here:
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 that leads to so many problems is a defective or distorted sense of one's SELF. The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their self. "It was widely believed that low self-esteem could be a cause of violence, but in reality violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves". Do you really suppose that people like Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden suffer from poor self-esteem? On the contrary. Exaggerated self-esteem is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath.
The pop-psychology that promulgated the widespread belief that if you nurture kid's self-esteem neglected to mention that if the sense of self was already damaged, all you managed to do was to create a narcissistic monster...it was a waste of time and money--as this article reports. If the 19th century was the age of hysteria (and basically, Freud was responding to the excessive sexual repression present in that century); then the 20th was the age of narcissism. In this new century, that narcissism seems to be morphing into an even more malignant sociopathy that pervades society and impacts almost all our social, political, and educational institutions.
Our cultural focus on enhancing "self-esteem" has resulted in the near-worship of emotions and feelings at the expense of reason and thought; on emphasizing "root causes" and victimhood, instead of demanding that behavior be civilized and that individuals exert self-discipline and self-control--no matter what they are "feeling".
Of course, psychiatry--particularly "pop" psychiatry and psychology have played a large role in the over-promotion of the self-esteem bandwagon. ShrinkWrapped comments:
This is where so much of our current pedagogy and the entire world of PC fails most dramatically. Children can tolerate losing; they know when another child is better at sports or math or spelling than they. A healthy child is not defeated by this but learns what he or she is able to do, and can do their best. The PC victimology in speech codes on so many campuses is worse than nonsensical; any person whose self esteem is damaged by cross words, is an individual with exceptionally fragile self esteem. The so-called Self Esteem movement has things exactly backwards. People do not achieve self esteem by never being hurt; they maintain their self esteem in the face of disappointments and hurts.
This is not only true of children, of course; it is also true of our patients. If we support their self-esteem at the expense of encouraging them to face reality; we do them no favors. Only by weathering the disappointments and hurts in life, do people develop a healthy self esteem, and most importantly, a healthy self.
A place where "all the children are above average" is really a place where all the children know that they are mediocre; and, where they learn to resent excellence in general; and learns to avoid tackling difficult projects so as not to burst the "self esteem bubble" that has been created around them.
Giving children the unconditional love they require in life--no matter whether they are above or below "average"-- is one thing, and it is very important; but every child and every individual has to work independently at their own level to the best of their own ability, to earn their own self-esteem. It can't be handed to them; and it can't be faked for them.
At least, not if you want a healthy child.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Out of Action
I have a bundle of work to finish today and then have to travel to give a talk this evening out of town. Blogging will be light to moderately non-existent. I'll get back to it as soon as I can! In the meantime, check out some of my other posts; or visit the excellent bloggers listed on my sidebar.
UN = Useless
If this doesn't prove how completely and utterly useless the United Nations is, then nothing ever will:
Set a deadline? Give them more time? Are these diplomats not listening to what Iranian officials have been saying? As they gloat about how all the time they have been given already has made it possible for them to move further down the path to achieve their nuclear ambitions?
Undoubtedly, when Iran develops (if they have not already developed) a nuclear weapon and uses it, the IAEA will suggest additional time to permit the mullahs to consider carefully the evil of their ways.
UN = Useless
* Diplomat says IAEA wants to give Tehran one final chance
* US shows satellite images to foreign diplomats to bolster charges
BERLIN: The head of the UN nuclear watchdog fears referring Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions now would be wrong and instead wants to give Tehran one final chance to comply, diplomats said on Wednesday.
The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) begins meeting on Monday. The main issue will be a joint EU-US plan to refer Tehran to the Security Council, which could lead to economic sanctions, due to fears Iran is developing atomic weapons.
“Everything points in the direction of the need for more time. So it would be in everbody’s favour to give it some three or four weeks,” a senior diplomat close to the UN atomic watchdog told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The diplomat said IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei suggested to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the IAEA’s governing board could instead set a deadline for Iran to resume a suspension of sensitive atomic activities and help the UN resolve outstanding questions about Iran’s nuclear programme.
Set a deadline? Give them more time? Are these diplomats not listening to what Iranian officials have been saying? As they gloat about how all the time they have been given already has made it possible for them to move further down the path to achieve their nuclear ambitions?
Undoubtedly, when Iran develops (if they have not already developed) a nuclear weapon and uses it, the IAEA will suggest additional time to permit the mullahs to consider carefully the evil of their ways.
UN = Useless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)