Wednesday, October 19, 2005

She Should Know

Victoria Toensing, has written an excellent article about the Plame investigation, that I strongly recommend to all sides of this issue. Here are the first couple of paragraphs in the Human Events piece:

There now appears to be consensus that no one violated the 1982 Agent Identities Protection Act in publishing the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame.
It’s a hard law to violate. Its high threshold requires that the person whose identity is revealed must actually be covert (which requires at the least a foreign assignment within five years of the revelation), that the government must be taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the person’s identity, and that the revealer must know that the government is taking those measures.

So why didn’t Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel investigating the “leak,” close up shop long ago?

One possible answer is that someone lied about a material fact when testifying before the grand jury or obstructed justice in some other way. If that is the case, the prosecutor should indict.

However, recent reporting, attributable to “lawyers familiar with the investigation,” points to a different prosecutorial tactic: Fitzgerald may be taking a “creative” approach to finding a legal violation. In other words, he may be trying to find a law other than the Agent Identities Protection Act that he might be able to apply to the factual scenario in this case even though it was never intended to cover such conduct.


So, why should we listen to anything Victoria Toensing has to say about this issue? Well, she was one of the authors of the the actual 1982 Agent Identities Protection Act. In other words, if anyone should know the applicability of this law to the Plame case and if it was violated, don't you think she would?

Read the entire article. It is very eye-opening.

UPDATE: Speaking of eye-opening, Glenn Reynolds quotes Mickey Kaus on why the Left hates Judy Miller so much. This is all part of the "selective memory" problem on the left side of the blogsphere.

Passion Free From Reason

The Anchoress has a must-read post about the latest spin from the Left on the Valerie Plame affair. In point of fact, the Left is spinning so fast, I'm sure they long ago forgot some of the essential points in this case and are simply just repeating all the wonderful tidbits they are telling each other.

Like today's headline from the NY Times: "No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak" .

Hello? Get a grip here. We are talking about a Grand Jury and a regular old ordinary prosecutor. Grand Jury testimony is secret. It is not revealed. On the basis of the Grand Jury deliberations, indictments are issued because there is reason to believe a crime was committed. Then the case is brought to a regular jury where evidence is presented by both a prosecutor and a defender.

In case you are interested, here are the rules related to Grand Juries (including Federal Grand Juries).

As The Anchoress correctly points out, Fitzgerald has never been committed to making a final report of the Grand Jury findings; and in fact, such a report would not be permitted under the operating rules of a Grand Jury. She rightly points out:

So, what is this whole NYT article, really? Is this simply the Democrats feeding a new meme, planting a new narrative to the press, in order to hedge their bets so that if the desired indictments don’t come down the pike, and no “final report” does, either, the mechanism to raise political hell is already in place? A mechanism based on a lie? A way to discredit everyone connected to this sham-scandal and begin re-beating the incessant drums of hate and doubt and…oh yeah, impeachment?

Because nothing has to be true, anymore, you know. Nefarious people only have to plant an idea in the right place, whether the idea is true or not - whether a thing is possible or not - because the “idea” only has to make headlines and talk shows for a few days before the truth is meekly acknowledged as false and the story put away. By then, the damage is done.


Funny thing, though. Even when the real truth comes out, there are those who continue to believe in the earlier inaccurate news stories; the frenzied wishful thinking rampant in the blogs; and the lies of people like Joe Wilson.

I happen to believe that there is noone who is above the law. But as Aristotle said, "The law is reason free from passion."

It is NOT passion free from reason--as so many of the spinners would have us believe.

Amazing What Freedom Can Do

This is from Dubai Al-Fayha Television in Arabic in Arabic 1510 GMT 18 Oct 05--sent to me by a person who has access to these translations. I think it is exceptionally revealing about the consternation that many people feel in the Arab world about a free and democratic Iraq:

At 1510 GMT on 18 October 2005, Dubai Al-Fayha Television in Arabic carries an episode of its daily program "Space of Freedom," moderated by Hashim al-Iqabi.

The episode addresses reactions by some Arab journalists on the 15 October draft-constitution referendum. At the outset, the moderator calls on Arab intellects to "respect the mentality of the Iraqi people." He then reads the following sample of headlines as published in some Arab newspapers: "The constitution, a chapter of the game;" "the hastily-drafted constitution;" "the constitution of Iraqi religious authorities;" "the new American Iraq;" and "the Zionist constitution and manipulating the sentiments of the Iraqis."

The program hosts Karim Badr, an Iraqi media expert; Sayyar al-Jamil, an Iraqi historian and political analyst; Maryam al-Rayyis, a National Assembly member; and Su'ad al-Jaza'iri, an Iraqi media expert, to comment on these headlines.

Al-Iqabi reads the following excerpt from an article by Abd-al-Bari Atwan, chief editor of the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi: "What seems to be going on? This year started with the January parliamentary elections, followed by the referendum on the constitution last Saturday. Two months ahead, the Iraqis will head for polling centers again. Three elections in less than a year? This does not happen even in the most anchored democracies in the world."

Commenting, Badr refers to "such writers as advocates of conspiracy who still live in their imaginary world." Atwan's article, he believes, is a confession by Atwan himself of the process of political change which Iraq is currently undergoing. Describing such writers as the "product of the Saddam's corrupt political elite," Badr stresses that the new Iraq will give birth to "a new and honest elite" of journalists and writers.

As for the reasons of "hatred some Arabs have toward Iraq," Badr accuses them of "suffering from schizophrenia." Such people, he adds, are not worth paying attention to because they are "internally defeated," and unable to foresee the future.

While Umm-Sana from Al-Najaf thinks that the roots of hatred toward the Iraqis "are now over 1,400 years old," Muaffaq from Basra argues that "it is better to let those people criticize us as they wish, but they have to know that we will not allow anyone to take our freedom of opinion away from us." Terming Al-Jazirah channel as "a forum of terrorism and bloodshed" he calls on "such writers" to "think of their future relations with Iraq" because the Iraqis "will never forget these stands."

Commenting on "why almost all Arabs hate the Iraqis," Al-Jamil says that Iraq represents "a unique historical case. It has always been rejected by regional forces. In addition, Iraq reflects a complicated strategy in this region because it functions as the heart of the Middle East." He notes that "there are noble feelings toward Iraq," but politicians and media outlets are to blame because they "spoiled" the public opinion.

Referring to claims that the constitution is "a Zionist charter that has been tailored in the US," Al-Rayyis, says that "these statements will not shake the dignity of the Iraqi people as they confirm beyond doubt that there are gigantic conspiracies against Iraq so as to hinder its political process."

Al-Jaza'iri says that the Iraqis have to give up words like "hatred" as such words "can intensify negative feelings." She blames Arab media, and to some extent Western media, for misleading the Arab public opinion. This role, she elaborates, reflects the official discourse of Arab regimes that use media to mirror their stands. She calls on Iraqi media to play an effective role against "this media onslaught."

Other Iraqi citizens phone the program to voice their opinions over this issue. Some callers refer to some Arab media outlets as "yellow channels." Others attack "those who have sold their pens to serve terrorists." Callers seem positive that Iraq will "defeat them."

Isn't it interesting how optimistic the Iraqis are (compared to most Americans--particularly those on the left, who are more interested in bringing down Bush than in defeating the terrorists). The difference is that in the US, many people have forgotten what it is that has made our country the greatest in the world. They have forgotten that when people are free to pursue their own happiness--because they have the political and economic freedom to follow their own bliss-- that it unleashes the best within the human spirit.

It is truly amazing what freedom can do for one's outlook on life....

Everybody Loves Pizza !

In honor of the 100th anniversary of Pizza (the first pizzeria license in New York was issued in 1905), a new book has been published Everybody Loves Pizza --which traces the hisory of our favorite food, and lists 546 "great American pizza places" around the country.

What I want to know is, what in the world did people eat in 1904 when they wanted to sit back and take in some Monday night football????

Saddam On Trial

Saddam Hussein goes on trial today. I hope that everyone realizes how significant this is.

Saddam Hussein went on trial Wednesday for a massacre of his fellow Iraqis, turning immediately argumentative as he appeared in a tightly secured courtroom in the former headquarters of his Baath Party two years after his capture. He faces charges in a 1982 massacre of nearly 150 Shiites that could carry the death penalty if he is convicted.
When the trial began, the 68-year-old ousted Iraqi leader - looking thin with a salt-an-pepper bear in a dark grey suit and open collared white shirt - stood and asked the presiding judge: "Who are you? I want to know who you are."

"I preserve my constitutional rights as the president of Iraq," Saddam said. "I do not recognize the body that has authorized you and I don't recognize this aggression ... I do not respond to this so-called court, with all due respect."

The presiding judge, Rizgar Mohammed Amin, a Kurd, tried to get Saddam to formally identify himself, but Saddam refused.


How often in history does a tyrant get to be confronted with his crimes by his victims? The courage of the Iraqis (particularly the judges in this case) fills me with awe. Two democratic votes while under the threat of violence by terrorists in one year; and now the courage to face the past and confront it head on.

The Iraqi people are amazing!

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Sorry Guys - You Lose

Since Salon.com has sent me a veritable horde of Left-wingers currently having a debate (if you want to call it that) at one of my posts about how evil and unpatriotic they think I am for my attitude toward the Plame case; I thought I would quote an article from Slate back at them--especially since they are so freaking "outraged" at the treasonous implications of the case.

[Just for my own information, here's a question for you: does the name "Sandy Berger" ring a bell in your suddenly patriotic breasts? We were at war when he filled his socks with classified information from the National Archives, yet I don't remember your overflowing outrage at the time.] Nevertheless, here is the key quote from the article from Slate :

As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald mulls possible charges in the Valerie Plame investigation, the gloating in liberal enclaves like Manhattan, Oberlin, and Arianna's dining room has swelled to a roar. Opponents of the Bush administration are anticipating vindication on various fronts—justice for their nemesis Karl Rove, repudiation of George W. Bush's dishonest case for the Iraq war, a comeuppance for Chalabi-loving reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times, and even some payback for the excesses of independent counsels during the Clinton years.

Hold the schadenfreude, blue-staters. Rooting for Rove's indictment in this case isn't just unseemly, it's unthinking and ultimately self-destructive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald's investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they'll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press's right to find out, the government's ability to disclose, and the public's right to know.

At the heart of this misbegotten investigation is a flawed piece of legislation called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. As Jack Shafer has written, this 1982 law is almost impossible to break because it requires that a government official unmask covert agents knowingly and with the intent of causing harm. The law was written narrowly to avoid infringing free speech or becoming an equivalent of Britain's Official Secrets Act. Under the First Amendment, we have a right to debate what is done in our name, even by secret agents. It may be impossible to criminalize malicious disclosure without hampering essential public debate.



But hey! Who cares when you have a chance to bash Bush and his administration! These same morons newly-minted patriots will be screaming about the secrecy of the Bush presidency and the violations of the public's right to know soon enough. And what do they care about trivial issues of law?

It is much more satisfying to be judge, jury, and executioner (and yes, they want an execution--no doubt about it) over the heroic and patriotic Joe Wilson, who--as we speak--is getting ready to publish his new book that will undoubtedly detail his horrible victimhood (and of course, that of his loyal, CIA, Vogue-modeling,undercover, out-in-the-open wife).

Whatever happens when Fitzgerald comes out with his findings, kiddos, you lose -- as usual.

UPDATE: Brit Hume just announced on FoxNews that the White House is laughing (rolling on the floor, I imagine) over the rumors about Cheney resigning and the other wishful thinking --otherwise called "news"--coming out of the MSM and left blogs today.

The Battle For World Overlord

Since he was identified as the world's leading intellectual, is is speculated that the battle for the position of World Overlord is now in a dead heat between Noam Chomsky and this guy.

I think the Democrats can do a lot better, personally.

Nobel Politics

I didn't realize that the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by a Swedish Academy Committee (like all the others) but by a Norwegian committee appointed by the Norwegian Parliament until I read Jeff Jacoby's column on the Nobel Prize awards.

In short, the Swedish committees that choose the Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and economics have once again selected persons of undoubted accomplishment whose work has stood the test of time.

The Swedes may not move as fast as Alfred Nobel envisioned. But the prizes they confer tend to stand the test of time as well. Rarely do they end up, in retrospect, looking outrageous or absurd.

But then there is the Nobel Peace Prize, which this year went to Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency he heads. Unlike the other Nobels, the peace prize is awarded not by Swedish scientists and scholars but by a committee of Norwegian politicians. That no doubt explains why the choice so often seems political.
[....]
The five Swedish Nobels are almost always rewards for true achievement. The one Norwegian Nobel too often smacks of an agenda. What a pity that the peace prize isn't chosen in Stockholm too.

I find this very interesting. However, I doubt if giving the Swedish parliament the same responsibility will do anything significant to change the politics of the prize.

Jacoby points out that the Swedish Committees in the sciences often wait --sometimes decades--in order to ensure that the work in question stands the test of time. This idea has worked in identifying those breakthroughs in science and medicine that are truly spectacular and meaningful.

So why not use the same strategy to determine the best recipient of the Peace Prize? Keep nominees names around for at least 5 years or more -- the better to assess who and what really mattered in the preservation or creation of genuine peace. The better to determine what and who was truly meaningful in bringing about peace and changing the world for the positive.

The delay could also give the evaluators time to determine the genuine article from the psychopath (Yasser Arafat); the poseur (Kofi Annan); the ridiculous (UN Peacekeeping forces) and the hopelessly naive and terminally ineffective(Jimmy Carter) --all of whom intone the right words yet behave in ways that in fact, undermine peace and enable tyrants.

If there was a Nobel Prize in Politics determined by the Peace Prize Committee, it would have undoubtedly been bestowed already on the likes of Saddam, Mugabe, and Castro.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Out and About


I will be travelling and giving a talk this evening. Back to blogging tomorrow sometime!

Why I Reject Muslim Values

Here is another one of those articles we have seen since repeatedly since the beginning of the GWOT--this one from the Guardian- that basically says the same old, same old; i.e., that Muslims are justified in rejecting British society because of (1) oppression; (2) poverty; (3)the Iraq War; and/or (4)Britain’s institutionally racist society:"Why Muslims Reject British Values" (hat tip: LGF)

These assertions have been debunked over and over again, so I am not about to waste any more time on them just because another silly Marxist has been given a platform in the MSM.

However, the title of the piece prompted me to analyze why I reject Muslim values--absolutely, thoroughly and unequivocally. While this is not an exhaustive list, 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.

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 I have 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 no longer had that option.


And if you want to understand why Marxists, communists, socialists, and your sundry other totalitarian-loving groups support and enable Islamic terrorism, read the explanation in the Guardian article above as to why we should blame ourselves for their barbaric and religiously-motivated behavior.

In case you were wondering, I also firmly reject the values of any collectivist, authoritarian purveyor of the Marxist class struggle, who enjoys fanning the flames of racism while surrepticiously resorting to it himself.

No Longer An Imitation

Hammarabi, an Iraqi blogger, tallies up the vote and comments:

Based on this we can say congratulation for the Iraqis with a big YES for the constitution which is passed.Over all how nice it is to be free and votes then calculate like the other civilized nations and not 99.999% yes for one person or one family under the barbaric dictatorship regimes.


This quote reminds me of a conversation I had once with a Russian, who was in the U.S. officially for a NASA-related event some years ago. It was before the breakup of the old Soviet Union, and this scientist, who was walking with me in a Houston mall commented wistfully, " It must be so nice to have an ordinary life where you can do things so normal like buy a bottle of perfume."

When I asked what she meant, she replied that what was everyday "normal" in my life, was an extraordinary event of momentous proportions in hers. "You have a real life," she emphasized, "Ours in the Soviet Union is only an imitation."

I think that is very eloquent. The Iraqis have a real life now--not an imitation one imposed by Saddam. I am not discounting the violence and the work that is yet to be done there, but for the first time Iraqis have a chance to have a normal life pursuing their own happiness and not the whims of a sadistic dictator and his thugs.

A Point To Remember

For those outraged Lefties who are crying "treason" and "conspiracy" every time the Plame investigation is mentioned, The Corner's Andy McCarthy makes an important point:


It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries. It is something that is done everyday. Last week, for example, Lanny Davis, Jim Benjamin, Sandy Berger and some of the other usual Clinton campers were out in force, transparently part of a unified effort – to borrow the Washington Post’s above phrasing – to discredit former FBI Director Louie Freeh for his statements critical of President Clinton’s national security record. Similarly, Democrats are out there every day with their talking points, joining together in an effort to discredit the Bush administration on everything from hurricanes to Haliburton.

Of course, Messrs. Pincus and Kurtz would never call any of that a “conspiracy.” They would call it “politics,” and they’d be right. But it is no different from White House officials rolling out a strategy to discredit Wilson, a committed enemy of the President’s foreign policy who made stunning public misrepresentations about how he came to be sent to Niger, what he found when he got there, and what happened when he got back – fabrications that were unabashedly designed to use a public platform he should never have been given to turn the American people against the war effort.


From the beginning of this case I have thought that the most interesting issue involved is one of motivation. In particular, it seems to me that only the most rabid of Bush haters (and therefore many Democratics and members of the extreme Left)--those who would believe this Administration capable of anything, no matter how depraved or insane--could possibly argue that there was a deliberate attempt to "punish" Joseph Wilson for speaking out against them by outing a CIA operative who happened to be his wife. Punish? Sorry, that is simply not credible.

Administration officials were not interested in punishing Wilson (who has been in this entire affair what could best be described as a "serial liar") as much as they were in discrediting what he had to say. And one way to discredit his credentials as a disinterested party was his "connection" to the CIA via his wife, who was the person who arranged for him to go on the secret mission to Niger-- not the VP office as he initially claimed.

What would be the point of anyone in the Bush Administration in "outing" Valerie Plame as an undercover agent? As has been demonstrated repeatedly, she was hardly "under cover" and it was well-known in Washington circles that she was employed by the CIA and was Wilson's wife.

In my correspondence with AJ Strata, who has kept on top of this story, he makes this comment:


The assumption that has to be made to support the idea outing Plame would punish Wilson and shut him up assumes Bush and his administration are bumbling fools who can not argue a point and win but must apply force and threats. The entire basis of this theory points to the anti-Bush crowd projecting.

Couldn't have said it better myself, AJ.

Projection as it turns out, seems to be the preferred psychological defense mechanism of the Left these days--as illustrated in this ridiculous article that asserts that Republicans have "normalized treason".

Its author needs to get a grip and realize how much he is revealing about his own perverrted motivations and his own hatred.

I await with bated breath Fitzgerald's findings in this matter.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Who Is That Guy In The Picture ?

Rice says that the Iraq Constitution appears to have passed! Bravo to the Iraqis!

As Gagdad Bob says (hat tip: Larwyn) History is what happens when the MSM is busy covering other news!

[sarcasm] Some people aren't going to believe this! Iraqi women carry photos of the evil Bushchimphitler on their way to the polls yesterday. How can this be??? [/sarcasm]



Photo from: Free Thoughts

Narcissistic Rage and Awe

There is a new theory that hypothesizes that suicide bombers act out of "altruism" (via Andrew Sullivan ):


Sacrificing one’s life for a religious cause — martyrdom — can include elements at odds with altruistic aims. “Heavenly promises” such as the idea that virgins and paradise await Islamic martyrs “detract from Durkheim’s view,” Riemer said.

But so long as group mentality motivates the suicide, it is still altruistic, Pedahzur and his colleagues claim. They claim individuals who kill themselves in search of “a lofty and glorious place for themselves” fall into a different but closely related category — “acute altruistic suicide.”

Acute altruistic suicide “stems from a strong religious conviction in the glorious destiny which awaits the perpetrator in the afterlife,” Pedahzur said. “With a serene conviction derived from the feeling of duty accomplished, this person is carried to his death in a burst of faith and enthusiasm.”

Faith alone, however, does not a terrorist make, Ginges cautioned. “I found personal devotion to and belief in Islam unrelated to support for terrorism,” he said.

Religious organizations find it easier to generate support for terrorism not because of their beliefs but rather “because of the link between collective rituals and altruism,” Ginges said.

Likewise, “the atmosphere in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank is such that a would-be martyr’s decision to embark on his journey of destruction is in fact reinforced by the approval of community,” Pedahzur said. “In a society where ‘honor’ is among the highest virtues, there are indeed powerful social pressures lying behind the suicide bomber’s decision. Hence, the suicide act appears a glaring example of altruistic behavior.”


Let's evaluate this theory from a psychological perspective. In psychology and psychiatry, Altruism is considered one of the healthiest types of psychological defense mechanisms: and is defined as "constructive service to others that brings pleasure and personal satisfaction." (Note: not destructive)

One can think of altruism as a constructive way to turn one's inner demons--demons that might otherwise exhort you into bad, destructive behavior-- into behavior that is positive and pleasurable to one's self and others.

An example might be choosing medicine as a profession, and taking care of others when what you really desire is for others to take care of you (I know all about this one). This motivation could also be a "reaction formation" (a more neurotic manifestation of the same psychological motivation), but when the behavior is accompanied by a feeling of pleasure at doing something good for others (instead of accompanied by feelings of repentance, resentment, duty or obligation), then it is mature, and not neurotic.

Altruism then, involves getting pleasure out of giving to others what you yourself would like to receive.

There is a significant difference between psychologically atoning for what a person believes are his "sins", and psychologically paying back society for one's "blessings". That is the difference between the neurotic defense of reaction formation and that of altruism.

Let me offer a different explanation for the suicide bomber, whose behavior is characterized by the simultaneous expression of rage at the "other" and unadulterated religious "ecstasy".

As I mentioned in my essay Narcissism and Society (all parts are linked to here)



Much of the evil that humans do to each other comes as a result of Narcissistic Rage and Narcissistic Idealism. In the former case, we hear about or know individuals who manipulate, control, subjugate, hurt or kill others and they are able to do this because they do not consider other people as human or separate from their own Self; or because they are so enraged they are not capable of empathy.

We see stories of this happening all the time on the news, frequently exclaiming, "How could someone do that?" The ex-boyfriend who cannot accept that the woman has dared to withdraw her love and so must kill her (and often himself); the serial killer who does not experience others as really human. The pedophile who abuses then murders his child victim. Every petty criminal who believes implicitly that his feelings and desires are paramount and justify his behavior.

The second type of evil is more subtle, and it comes from the the opposite side of the Self. This side also does not see other people as individuals either; and instead sees them only as fodder for the expression of an IDEAL or as pawns for an Omnipotent Object (e.g., a dictator). People with this Idealizing Narcissistic defect (and by the way, such people are also capable of Narcissistic Rage when thwarted) completely reject the needs of the individual and enslave him or her to their IDEAL. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy and self-esteem. These "do-gooders" cause considerable human misery and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of the IDEAL or GOD.

I further explore this point in the post, "Union With An Evil God", which looks specifically at the motivation of the suicide bomber:



The essence of religious ecstasy occurs when one's Self is perfectly united to the elusive omnipotent object of one's infancy; and this fusion has little room in the crowded psyche for the consideration of of those outside the fusion. It is just one's own pathetic little Self and God.

Usually, this is not so bad as experiences go; and many who are caught up in this incredible ecstasy are led to new understanding and appreciation of their own humanity; their Self is strengthened and renewed; and they may feel a benevolence and peace toward all other human beings. Fusion with a benign and caring god can even provoke monumental spiritual changes for the good in some individuals.

But this is not the case when one unites with a brutal, bloodthirsty, compassionless god like Allah the Merciful (what a misnomer!). The Allah of the gentleman quoted in the article above is hardly benign and demands not only your death, but that you commit murder in his name. The perfect union is still perceived ecstatically, even if the Self undergoes medieval torture; for it is still the desired Oneness that the developing Self lost early on in life. Allah the omnipotent object remains omnipotent--just evil-- and the result is a profound loss of humanity and a rejection of the good.


In fact, the significance of the suicide -murderer in history is that the act of committing suicide and murder at the same time is the absolute ultimate expression of both Narcissistic Awe/Idealism and Narcissistic Rage. What other act so perfectly encompasses both an impotence and hopelessness of the individual self compared to the omnipotent other; and at the same time expresses the incoherent rage and fury inherent in this state of being.

This is not necessarily a cultural thing or even an Islamic thing (though Islam has taken it to new heights). Our own culture has its share of "suicide-murderers" (stringing a bunch of explosives around your waist is simply a creative flourish on the fundamental concept).

Culture and/or religion may play a role in the form or purposes of the suicide-murder; or, more importantly, may condemn or encourage such behavior. In other words, social and group pressure may be a factor in this kind of behavior (as it is in all sorts of behavior), but groups do not and cannot have an overriding influence unless there is fertile psychological soil in the self of the individual who commits such a horrific act.

The "fertile soil" in which socially sanctioned suicide/homicide can flourish is an individual whose self has not matured (i.e. is very young), or someone whose self has been traumatically ruptured in the course of normal adult development. Such a rupture can result in a deformed and fractured self that expresses a full range of narcissistic rage and awe; or--as in the case of the suicide murderer--sometimes both at the same time.

True altruism requires a healthy--and whole--self. You may ask about those instances of altrusim where someone gives up his or her life to save another. Such an act can certainly be an expression of healthy altruism simply because the individual has identified values, ideals, or other individuals that he or she is willing to die for. But, consider the "values" and "ideals" of the terrorist who blows himself up on the bus filled with schoolchildren. What delusion could cause him believe that his behavior would make others feel joy? And what is the emotional maturity or health of someone who would feel joy at such a despicable act? It is truly a warped culture, or religion, or whatever-- that distorts and perverts the best part of the human spirit in this way.

If you want to make a mockery of the word "altrusism" then you can call the suicide bomber's action "acute altruistic idealism".

But I call it the expression of an individual whose self-hatred is equaled and possibly even exceeded by his hatred of others outside his own group.

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. Never, I would imagine.

2. He's dreaming of a nice cheddar...just like the one's he's had before!

3. Don't bother, they're there.

4. NVBOM ? I suggest BOOGER (Bastards Out Of Government forevER)--its easier to remember!

5. Another advocate of non-attorney appointments to the Supreme Court!

6. Have a nice day. Easy for him to say.

7. No! Really? I would never have imagined this.

8. The most pathetic losers in the Iraqi election are people who write sh** like this. Not enthusiastic enough for you? What a gormless twit.

9. Yes, let's talk about staging the news, shall we (video here)? Some people never outgrow this sort of thing! And here's a good discussion of the spin that began it all.

10. Hugo Chavez is a natural disaster.

11. I'm sure most of you can relate to having a micromanaging boss like this poor guy .

12. This sounds like a worthwhile activity. Can you sue to keep someone from ever speaking publicly again? Darn.

13. The afterlife from an intellectual/analytical standpoint. As Spock would say, "Interesting."

14. More to the point, what a person chooses to write about speaks volumes about his personality.

15. 7 Myths about Islam. Let's hope this analysis is valid. There are serious doubts, however.

16. Put some ditties in your titties, indeed!

17. But in my book he wins the Ignoble prize regularly.

18. StopTheACLU not surprisingly wants to stop the ACLU from perverting the Constitution.

19. Oh soooooo mean!

20. Senior moments in Congress. And speaking of Congress, this invention might be helpful. (Sorry, that was soooooo mean)

21. The resemblance is uncanny!

22. Now here is a candidate for those in the Democratic Party who don't think Hillary is quite extreme enough.

23. I. am. not. making. this. up. I wonder if it works???? Sheesh, another conspiracy theory!

24. If this came to pass, an uncountable number of voices would cry out in anguish, and then be silenced forever....

25. And I couldn't not include this travesty in the Carnival. It is far more dastardly and graphic than this.

BTW, thanks to the Baron at Gates of Vienna for the new Carnival graphic!

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Malignantly Self-Absorbed

I haven't had much to say about the entire Plame-Wilson investigation to date, but I have read everyone's speculations--both Left and Right-- and the clinching argument for me was this article today by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard. It is must-read for anyone interested in the chronology of events in the whole affair. I urge you to read it in its entirety because it provided information that I found to be exceedingly illuminating and which I had not ever seen in any major news report of this subject. These excerpts in particular caught my attention and raised my psychiatric antennae:

It was the first of many times Joseph Wilson would tell his story to a reporter and the first of many times he would overstate his role and invent his supposed findings. The White House didn't pay much attention to the Kristof column. Few people knew about Wilson and his CIA-sponsored trip, and those who did know dismissed Wilson's claims as wildly inaccurate. Wilson, after all, had gone to Niger and returned some eight months before the U.S. government ever came into possession of the forged documents.

[....]

Wilson also peddled his story to John Judis and Spencer Ackerman at the New Republic. And as in the whispered "telephone" game that kids play around the campfire, the story became more distorted the more it was told. In the New Republic's version, Vice President Cheney received the forged documents directly from the British a year before Bush spoke the "16 words" in the January 2003 State of the Union. Cheney then
had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR.

It should be clear by now that the only one telling flat-out lies was Joseph Wilson. Again, Wilson's trip to Niger took place in February 2002, some eight months before the U.S. government received the phony Iraq-Niger documents in October 2002. So it is not possible, as he told the Washington Post, that he advised the CIA that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." And it is not possible, as Wilson claimed to the New York Times, that he debunked the documents as forgeries.

That was hardly Wilson's only fabrication. He would also tell reporters that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger and, as noted in the New Republic article, that Vice President Cheney's office had seen the report of his findings. Both claims were false.

In other words, the person creating the most confusion in an already complex and complicated chronology is the very person at the center of the action; and the person who is married to the CIA operative who was supposedly outed; the person who was presumably being "retaliated against" by the evil Bush Administration, who hardly knew or cared about his existence prior to the events being investigated.

Several years of investigation will come to fruition later this month. There are many who question if a crime was even committed in publicly naming Valerie Plame, Mrs. Joseph Wilson, as an employee of the CIA and compromising her undercover status.

I honestly don't know what Patrick Fitzgerald will do. So much of what is done these days in the name of the people is done for purely political and partisan reasons that have little to do with honesty, integrity or truth. But here are my thoughts:

If you are looking for the person who has lied; distorted; and deliberately tried to create mischief and undermine the credibility of the U.S.government, while at the same time promoting himself and his own role in the affair---you need look no further than Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame. The prevarications originated with him. The lies originated with him.

I suspect that the leaks being investigated could very likely have originated from the same malignantly self-absorbed source.

That's my take. We shall see how it all comes down soon.

MY LAST WORD ON HARRIET MIERS

The following is shamelessly adapted from the Simpson's episode where Homer is wrongly accused of inappropriately touching a babysitter (he was only trying to rescue a gummi candy that had stuck to her clothing). The media and everyone automatically assume his guilt.

It is my belief, that anything that happens in real life can be understood by either watching The Simpsons, or Star Trek (or both!).

Newsman: Miers scandal update: Harriet sleeps nude in an oxygen tent
which she believes gives her special powers interpreting the Constitution!

Harriet: Hey -- that's a half-truth!
{[changes channels to Sally Jesse Raphael]}

Conservative Pundit: {[weeping] I don't know Harriet Miers, I -- I never met Harriet
Miers or had any contact with her, but -- [cries uncontrollably] -- I'm sorry, I can't go on.}

Sally: {That's OK: your tears say more than real evidence _ever_ could.}

Perfect.

DEMOCRACY EXPLODES IN IRAQ !

(Just using a typical MSM headline!) From the news: "Whole families marched to the polls, standing in line by the hundreds in the crucial electoral battleground provinces of central Iraq that have mixed populations and will be decisive in whether the draft constitution will pass or fail.

In towns where Sunni Arabs largely boycotted the voting in January parliamentary elections, they now were eager to cast ballots, most of them hoping to defeat a draft charter they fear will set in stone their domination by Iraq's Shiite majority.

"The government can't just sew together an outfit and dress the people up by force. We do not see ourselves or see our future in this draft," Gazwan Abdul Sattar, 27-year-old Sunni teacher, said after voting "no" in the northern city of Mosul.

In a nearby mostly Kurdish neighborhood, Bahar Saleh gave her support to the constitution.

"This constitution will at last give the Kurds their lost rights," the 34-year-old housewife said, coming from the polls with the red-and-green Kurdish flag wrapped around her body.

In the south, the heartland of Iraq's Shiites, women in head-to-toe veils and men emerged from the polling stations flashing victory signs with fingers stained with indelible, violet ink to ensure everyone votes only once.


Oh dear! Who ever heard of people verbally disagreeing on the course that their country should take? That never happens here! How typically democratic!

One voter: "Today, I came to vote because I am tired of terrorists, and I want the country to be safe again," said Zeinab Sahib, a 30-year-old mother of three, one of the first voters at a school in Baghdad's mainly Shiite neighborhood of Karrada. "This constitution means unity and hope."

Go for it!

UPDATE: Iraq the Model has more.

I met one friend on the way and when I asked him what would his vote be he said that he hasn’t decided yet “if I voted yes I would be approving some articles that I don’t agree with and if I voted no we would go back to where we started from…” he said and that was really refreshing because this guy who used to believe in conspiracy theories and stuff like “what America wants is what’s going to happen” now feels that his vote can make a difference.


The conspiracy theories are now probably confined to the terrorists, the MSM, and the Left.

Friday, October 14, 2005

WHY NOT ?


There is nothing in the Constitution against it, and since I am a strict constructionist I was wondering,

WHY NOT NOMINATE A PIONEERING WOMAN PSYCHIATRIST FOR SUPREME COURT ?

I'm not joking. Having to deal with Democratic and Republican Senators requires a stable, mature individual with a healthy sense of the ridiculous and an appreciation of political insanity. Appreciating the absurdity of human behavior and negotiating the sometimes unrealistic and often psychotic and childlike demands made on all the branches of government, including the judicial branch, would be a piece of cake for such a person.

Also, being a psychiatrist is an added bonus.

UNRELENTING GLOOM & NEGATIVITY

Victor Davis Hanson has his Friday op-ed piece up and in it he rips Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national-security adviser to President Carter, whose critique of the Iraq War appeared in the LA Times recently:

What are we to make of all this, when a former national-security adviser writes that the war that began when Middle Eastern terrorists struck at the heart of the continental United States in New York and Washington — something that neither the Nazis, Japanese militarists, nor Soviets ever accomplished — was merely a “challenge largely of regional origin”? Some “region” — downtown Manhattan and the nerve center of the American military.

Aside from the unintended irony that the classical historian Arnold Toynbee himself was not always “adroit,” but wrong in most of his determinist conclusions, and that such criticism comes from a high official of an administration that witnessed on its watch the Iranian-hostage debacle, the disastrous rescue mission, the tragicomic odyssey of the terminally ill shah, the first and last Western Olympic boycott, oil hikes even higher in real dollars than the present spikes, Communist infiltration into Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Cambodian holocaust, a gloomy acceptance that perpetual parity with the Soviet Union was the hope of the day, the realism that cemented our ties with corrupt autocracies in the Middle East (Orwellian sales of F-15 warplanes to the Saudis minus their extras), and the hard-to-achieve simultaneous high unemployment, high inflation, and high interest rates,

Mr. Brzezinski is at least a valuable barometer of the current pessimism over events such as September 11. Such gloom seems to be the fashion of the day.

Iraq is now routinely dismissed as a quagmire or “lost.” Osama bin laden is assumed to be still active, while we are beginning the fifth year of the war that is “longer than World War II.” Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo purportedly are proof of our brutality and have lost us hearts and minds, while gas prices spiral out of control.

The U.S. military is supposedly “overextended” if not “wrecked” by Iraq, while the war in Afghanistan “drags on.” Meanwhile, it is “only a matter of time” until we are hit with another terrorist strike of the magnitude of September 11. To cap it off, the United States is now “disliked” abroad, by those who abhor our “unilateralism” and “preemptive” war.

All that is a fair summation of the current glumness. But how accurate are such charges? If one were to assess them from the view of the Islamic fundamentalists, they would hardly resemble reality.

Hanson was only responding to one article, but his complaint about the unrelenting gloom and negativity we see in the media about Iraq is spot on. Sadly, however, it is not confined to just Iraq.

I cannot even begin to imagine what President Bush feels about the continued unrelentingly negative media coverage of his every word, action and presumed thoughts. Is there anywhere that Bush can go to get some positive (hell, I'll settle for merely neutral) coverage of any of his policies? Let's take a look: (my comments are in italics):

IRAQ
1. New York Times - "In a Scripted TV Scene, Soldiers Reassure Bush"
How pathetic is that? The soldiers have to reassure the President?

2. Reuters - "Al Qaeda in Iraq says Zawahri letter is fake - Web"
(Guess who the media prefers to believe? Certainly the Left believes Al Qaeda more than they do the POTUS)
3. Associated Press - "Iraq Insurgents Attack Sunni Party Office"
(Did you know that there is an historic vote on an historic consititution going on in Iraq?)

4. Associated Press - "Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged"
(The implication of course is that without the staging they would have nothing nice to say; or that they are too stupid to say what they think; or that the President wasn't taking any chances.")

5. Knight-Ridder - "Sectarian resentment extends to Iraq's army"
(My god, it's all so hopeless, isn't it?)

SUPREME COURT
1. San Francisco Chronicle - "Calls for Miers to withdraw get louder. Moves to mollify critics aren't working"
(Withdraw! Withdraw! Show how pathetic you are! Of course, no matter who you appoint will be excoriated by us, but we're so happy that the Republicans are doing it for us for a change!)

2. New York Times - "Bush Criticized Over Emphasis on Religion of Nominee"
(Bush is criticized for emphasizing anything about the candidate - that she's a woman; that she's accomplished; that she's a friend; that she's competent; that she's conservative; that she's a lawyer; etc. etc.)

3. Washington Post - "For Miers, Proximity Meant Power"
(Did any of the Media ever say that about Hilary and her "rise to power"? Who the hell would have heard of her if her husband hadn't been a Governor or the President? I'd say Miers didn't have to sleep her way into power, at least)

GENERAL
1. Washington Post - "Scandals Take Toll On Bush's 2nd Term"
(Unrelenting negativity takes toll on Bush's 2nd term would be more accurate)

3. New York Times - "Jitters at the White House over Leak Inquiry"
(Oooooh! "Jitters"! Let's imply they're nervous because they're guilty guilty guilty of EVERYTHING!)

4. Knight-Ridder - "Administration scrambles to prepare U.S. against possible pandemic"
("Scrambles" implies that they should have already been completely prepared, right? So as usual they are incompetent)

5. Associated Press - "Poll: Bush Presidency Judged Unsuccessful "
(Has anyone noticed that Bush has THREE MORE YEARS left in his Presidency? Why not wait for the poll to be taken when it is complete? Also, regarding his popularity polls --has anyone realized that BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR A THIRD TERM? Therefore he doesn't have to be the most popular kid on the block.)

All of the above makes it quite easy to appreciate the relevance of this study; and the underlying cause explored in this this one.

The Chicken Littles of the MSM are running around screaming that the sky is falling, but from here it is only partly cloudy with a really good chance of sunshine.

So, I will patiently 1) wait to see the results of the Iraqi vote on their constitution; 2) listen to the Senate confirmation hearings on Miers and decide for myself; 3) look forward to seeing who is actually indicted in the Plame affair; and 4) await history's verdict on the Bush Presidency.