ENABLING REALITY

I am a bit under the weather, so I intend to take it easy today.

But I will leave you with this excellent article by Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey which describes in detail how Obama has made us less safe (remember reality, that manipulative bitch? The one who is always demanding our attemtion whether we want to give it to her or not?) Hayden and Mukasey seem to frankly enabling her behavior:

The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.

Proponents of the release have argued that the techniques have been abandoned and thus there is no point in keeping them secret any longer; that they were in any event ineffective; that their disclosure was somehow legally compelled; and that they cost us more in the coin of world opinion than they were worth. None of these claims survives scrutiny.

Soon after he was sworn in, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that suspended use of these techniques and confined not only the military but all U.S. agencies -- including the CIA -- to the interrogation limits set in the Army Field Manual. This suspension was accompanied by a commitment to further study the interrogation program, and government personnel were cautioned that they could no longer rely on earlier opinions of the OLC.

Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president's right to suspend use of any technique. However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

Moreover, disclosure of the details of the program pre-empts the study of the president's task force and assures that the suspension imposed by the president's executive order is effectively permanent. There would be little point in the president authorizing measures whose nature and precise limits have already been disclosed in detail to those whose resolve we hope to overcome. This conflicts with the sworn promise of the current director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, who testified in aid of securing Senate confirmation that if he thought he needed additional authority to conduct interrogation to get necessary information, he would seek it from the president. By allowing this disclosure, President Obama has tied not only his own hands but also the hands of any future administration faced with the prospect of attack.

Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.

Which brings us to the next of the justifications for disclosing and thus abandoning these measures: that they don't work anyway, and that those who are subjected to them will simply make up information in order to end their ordeal. This ignorant view of how interrogations are conducted is belied by both experience and common sense. If coercive interrogation had been administered to obtain confessions, one might understand the argument. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who organized the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, among others, and who has boasted of having beheaded Daniel Pearl, could eventually have felt pressed to provide a false confession. But confessions aren't the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation.

The terrorist Abu Zubaydah (sometimes derided as a low-level operative of questionable reliability, but who was in fact close to KSM and other senior al Qaeda leaders) disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information which -- when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydah -- helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists, and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S. Details of these successes, and the methods used to obtain them, were disclosed repeatedly in more than 30 congressional briefings and hearings beginning in 2002, and open to all members of the Intelligence Committees of both Houses of Congress beginning in September 2006. Any protestation of ignorance of those details, particularly by members of those committees, is pretense.

The techniques themselves were used selectively against only a small number of hard-core prisoners who successfully resisted other forms of interrogation, and then only with the explicit authorization of the director of the CIA. Of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program. Of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in these opinions. As already disclosed by Director Hayden, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations.

Read it all, please.

It seems our current Commander in Chief, having made both our own and the next generation much less wealthy, now intends to insure that we are all much less safe from the threat of those silly "man-caused disasters"--you know, those little disruptions in life that seem to obsess Islamic fanatics everywhere.

And, if the faux moral preening of the left on this issue doesn't make you want to hurl, just wait until groups like Al Qaeda fully grasp how fndamentally unserious our wonderful Messiah and his idiotic diciples are about the threat they pose.

What a wonderful world it will be then.

HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL DENIAL WORKS

When you hear something you don't want to hear, a magical creature comes out of nowhere, bonks you on the head, and makes you forget what you heard. Then you can pretend you only hear what you want. This process is illustrated below:



Denial is a complex psychological process where there may be some conscious knowledge or awareness of events in the world, but somehow one fails to feel their emotional impact or appreciate their logical consequences.

Denial is an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes--or even a painful external reality might alter our the self-perception or damage our self-esteem. This psychological defense mechanism protects (temporarily, at least) from:
-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)
-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)
-Unacceptable feelings (things we don’t want to feel)

Denial can short-circuit the brain and cause it to malfunction (see this example discussed by David Freddoso)

In other words, it can make you entirely clueless , or even a complete idiot who gleefully enables, encourages, and supports evil.

Needless to say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Sometimes, hearing someone confront those unpleasant truths can be an extremely painful experience, especially when your entire culture is engaged in mass denial, projection and paranoia--all of which lead inevitably to hate, intolerance and bigotry as its defining characteristics.

It's much easier to forget all that unpleasantness. As long as there is someone to blame for your own dysfunction, you can keep on feeling good....for a while, anyway.

REALITY, THAT MANIPULATIVE BITCH

Gee...a poll says that Obama is not making the U.S. less safe! As is to be expected the usual idiots on the left, whose brains have been turned to mush by postmodern metaphysics and epistemology, treat polls as Holy Gospel (who says they aren't religious on that side of the aisle?).

Now, all we have to do is wait to see what that smug, irritating, manipulative bitch reality has to say about the subject.

I suspect we will know one way or the other very shortly.

THE REAL EXTREMISTS

It is distressing that many bloggers on the right and the left consider the DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism a non-issue and think that conservatives are over-reacting to the content. I'm not going to get into with them, but I think that all reasonable persons should compare the "Left" version with the "Right" one--as Ed Morrissey and Clarice Feldman have done, and note the disparities:

The first report is based on long debunked stories and factless stereotypes of the Administration's political opponents. The report on the leftwing extremists seems to have been written on the basis of some real, demonstrable threats.

But don't take my--or anybody else's word--go read the reports for yourself.

It is also interesting to consider some of the specific language in the "Rightwing Extremism" report that Mark Steyn couldn't help noticing:

...here's the bit that raised my eyebrow in that Homeland Security report:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration

.

Ah, right. So a predisposition toward the Tenth Amendment marks you down as a "rightwing extremist." Federalism is now a security threat. Likewise, being found in possession of subversive literature like that right-wing extremist Tocqueville's paean to the glories of American municipal self-government.

And, lastly, I thought this "DHS Report Shorthand" by Peter Kirasanow is spot on:

That DHS report warning about all manner of "right-wing extremists" could be considerably shortened if it simply alerted law-enforcement officials to be on the lookout for people from "small towns (who are) bitter (and) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

However you look at it, the DHS Report, issued by a DHS that has reclassified terrorism as "man-caused disasters" and an Administration that probably considers homegrown terrorism as "National Contingency Operations" should be a significant concern for any American who still believes in those traditional values Chuck Schumer mocks.

I think Schumer's remarks are very telling. In a 'classical' postmodern maneuver "traditional American values" have now been redefined in Obama's Newspeak as "rightwing extremism".

No matter how you spin it, there're some very scary "changes" rapidly being introduced without much discussion or transparency into American Society right now that don't inspire me with a lot of "hope". And those changes are going to have some very profound, and possibly disastrous, consequences for many years to come.

And you thought 1984 was soooo last century...but then, so was Atlas Shrugged.

TAX DAY BLUES

Jazz singer Kathleen Stewart protests Tax Day with the "1040 Blues"--very appropriate for today:

BONUS SONG AT THE LINK: "The Crazy Left" --They're as looney as it gets...the crazy, mixed-up left....I kinda like these lyrics!

HOW TO STOP THE POWER GRAB BY OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS

There is a way to effectively counter the growing power of the Federal Government under Obama, as this video explains:



I support Tea Parties, but I think their effect on Congress will be limited, and the MSM will aid an abet all those power-hungry dictator wannabees in D.C. to the full extent possible by continuing to ignore and/or downplay the Tax Day protests as much as possible.

But taking back our individual states is fully within our power. It has been a long time since anyone stood up for State's Rights, but if there was ever a time to do so, it is now--before the new Administration can declare states like Texas a part of the vast right wing terrorist conspiracy and criminalize all dissent against our wonderful leftwing Messiah.

States rights used to be an important aspect of the Constitution (see the 10th Amendment).

FIGHT, FLIGHT AND THE PERSISTENCE OF EVIL-Part II

"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war."-Winston Churchill, on the events leading up to WWII

Part I is here.

If there is a "suicidal impulse" that lurks within our species as Dr. Bliss intimates in Part I, it would appear to be primarily the result of a profound reluctance to admit to the built-in, biological realities of the human animal.

Those among us who 'abjure violence' under all circumstances, have allowed themselves to believe that human beings are 'perfectable', i.e., that they can escape or entirely bypass their biological heritage and the essential elements of their very human nature..

It won't work. It never works.

A Cato Institute Policy Report from 2005 notes:

In the spring of 1845, Karl Marx wrote, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." Marx's idea was that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence."

In June 2004 the communist North Korean government issued a statement to its starving citizens recommending the consumption of pine needles. Pyongyang maintained that pine needle tea could effectively prevent and treat cancer, arteriosclerosis, diabetes, cerebral hemorrhage, and even turn grey hair to black.

Tragically, human nature isn't at all as advertised, and neither is pine needle tea. According to the U.S. State Department, at least one million North Koreans have died of famine since 1995.

Marx's theory of human nature, like Kim Jong Il's theory of pine needle tea, is a biological fantasy, and we have the corpses to prove it. Which may drive us to wonder: if communism is deadly because it is contrary to human nature, does that imply that capitalism, which is contrary to communism, is distinctively compatible with human nature?

In the movie Serenity, Captain Mal Reynolds has witnessed the horrific nightmare that came from the lovely utopian dreams of the 'do-gooders' of his universe--who only wanted to eliminate human aggression so as to create a perfect society; they meant well, you know--and he decides it is time to take a moral stand against such naked evil: "Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that."

While the pacifist ('turning the other cheek' is another variant of running away, or Flight) may be considered saintly and their principles admired and emulated, if such a reaction to dealing with existential threats were biologically programmed into a species, that species would not survive for very long. Even in those species where the preferred response to danger is to almost always run away(because of their size or other limitations), they are still able to fight--quite viciously--if necessary. Take, for example, a typical rat whose usual behavior is to run away from any threat. When cornered, even this small animal will fight to the death if their survival is at stake.

All this is not to say that Flight strategies can not be extremely useful in many dangerous situations. They are. But, consider this very modern reality: there is nowhere to run to avoid WMD. And an important corollary to that is that there is no appeasing someone who is dedicated to an ideology that requires them to kill you.

Under such circumstances, there is no land that can be given up for peace--they will demand more and more and still come after you. There is no appeasement that will prevent them from 'wiping' you off the map. In other words, there is no way to coexist with the kind of evil that exists today.

This essentially means that the 50% of our population whose instinct, when confronted with the repugnant and unbelievable evil of Islamic fundamentalism and its direct and unambiguous threat to Western Civilization, is to run away, appease or convert; are incorrect in thinking that their peaceful response will be effective in preserving their own and their loved one's lives for any significant amount of time. On the contrary, it is more likely that it guarantees their eventual extinction--either physically or psychologically. The only option for them in the end--whether they like it or not-- is to turn and fight (like the cornered rat) or die. Interestingly, and unlike the survival instinct of the rat; many modern humans when faced with the evil that confronts us in the 21st century, have found comfort in psychological denial and in magical thinking about the threat.

Bruce Thornton has written about the magical thinking that seems to dominate foreign policy:

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

Some Factors That Have Led to the Relative Ineffectiveness of the "Flight" Mechanism in the Modern World

Essentially, three factors have contributed to an effective neutralization of the "flight" strategy, making it less effective as a sole means of dealing with some of the more nakedly aggressive and brutal regimes of today's world.

(1)The development of distant weapons systems and weapons of mass destruction have made it impossible to "run away" or "move away" from threats in the modern world. There is nowhere to go to be safe from such weapons. Or, to paraphrase Buckeroo Bonzai, "No matter where you go, there they are."

(2)Along with the development of these highly technological weapons is the increasing capability of even the most non-technological and relatively primitive, mostly irrational and non-compromising societies/cultures/nations to acquire, develop and/or use them. Many of these groups are not particularly amenable to living side by side with those who do not share their world view and are passionately committed to destroying alternative world views which are experienced as too psychological threatening for their fragile collective egos. And, finally,

(3)The ubiquitousness of postmodernism--both the general philosophy and the consequent political rhetoric--has tacitly undermined one side's moral options and keeps them at a continuous psychological disadvantage; forcing them to deal with the societies/cultures/nations in #2 above as if they were equal in rationality, peaceful intent, and moral worth. (See here and here, for example; or this book)

With the ascension of postmodern political rhetoric and the demagoguery that accompanies it; and the subsequent ease with which the denial of reality is not only socially acceptable, but highly encouraged, we have had a growing gap and increasing tension between those who are predisposed to running away from the most significant threat to human life; and those who wish to confront it and fight.

In other words, as the survival stakes have risen for the entire human species, instead of using both strategies optimally (i.e., not only "smart" diplomacy, but "smart" aggression), there are increasing calls for exclusively using "Flight" as the best and only option.

Why? Because a confluence of cultural and societal factors, philosophical and religious factors, have tipped the physiological and psychological balance to just this one strategy (Flight) as the ONLY MORAL OPTION. This is an interesting position, coming as it does from the side that insists that morality is "relative" and all, don't you think? But it explains why they are unwilling to confront terrorists who behead hostages and don't subscribe to the Geneva Conventions at all; but hysterically insist that the U.S.--who follows those Conventions and even does more than they require--is a terrorist state that tortures those poor, mistreated enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Postmodernism, with its moral relativity and cultural nihilism, is the malignant root cause of the West's suicidal impulse and its willingness to appease and run away from threats to its values and way of life.

In effect, the irrational and contradictory strictures of postmodernism are forcing the suppression of the "Fight" response and the aggressive side of human nature; and they put human individuals and free societies at risk of being conquered by barbarians with no such scruples.

Let us suppose that the tendency to either fight or flight is evenly distributed within most populations and that the preponderence for the use of one strategy or the other is likely culturally determined or learned. When a culture puts inflexible (and irrational, contradictory, and even suicidal) political, moral, legal and psychological restraints on its citizens in an attempt to eliminate the aggressive side of human nature; then the very survival of the society becomes questionable.

What are "Good" and "Evil" and How do they Relate to this Discussion?

Postmodern philosophy has taken a relativistic stance on the issue of ethics and morality; "good" and "evil". But, the concepts of “good" and "evil” are not arbitrary human inventions, disconnected from reality; on the contrary, they are concepts that are inextricably tied to reality, and to human life and biology.

Ayn Rand in her philosophical novel, Atlas Shrugged, wrote:

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”

The "good" is that which furthers life and gives it value, meaning and purpose. The "evil" is that which thwarts or destroys life; and takes away meaning, purpose and the will to survive. Understanding this is essential for human survival, and that is why we are physiologically hardwired and do not have to learn how to respond to threats to our existence. Overriding that essential biological pathway can only be done through the use of fear and overwhelming psychological and/or physical threat, as is seen in totalitarian and tyrannical societies. Once this is done, the biological mechanism is harnessed by the State or Collective to do its bidding. The individual will or conscience is eliminated or suppressed and the essence of humanity is snuffed out.

What we do have to learn, however, is how to control and focus the response to optimize our survival. What we have to learn is to channel the response to be productive and creative, rather than ineffective and destructive. That is, we must use our mind to determine the best adaptive response for a given situation. This requires the intellect and the use of reason, along with a degree of emotional maturity (and not hysteria or the over-reliance on emotions--either positive or negative ones).

As Ayn Rand further writes in (Atlas Shrugged):

A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs
that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality.

In psychological terms, human survival is not just a matter of life or death; it is also a matter of happiness or suffering. Happiness is the usual by-product when one's life is purposeful; and when it is going in the direction one has chosen and according to one's values; suffering is a red flag that something serious is wrong and that failure, a loss of values, or death is imminent.

Ultimately it is the rational, cognitive capability of the human mind that determines the most effective use of either the Fight or Flight mechansim. Civilization depends on reining in and sublimating the aggressive side of man's nature and harnessing it to optimize happiness and minimize suffering. It also depends on reining in the quite natural human desire to avoid or run away from conflict that may ultimately cause destruction if it is not faced.

Aggression is an inescapable part of human nature and can never be eliminated or the culture will rot and decline as individuals lose the will to live and all meaning, purpose, and individual joy is sucked out of their lives.

Rational diplomacy and rhetoric are extremely effective tools when dealing with other rational humans and other rational societies and cultures who value life and liberty (or, at least life); and who are interested in the happiness and well-being of their members. Clearly, these tools of human survival are ones we cannot live without, since compromise, exchange and tolerance are also essential for individuals and cultures to thrive and progress.

Ideally, civilizations find ways to use both the Fight and the Flight mechanisms productively and naturally; alone or in unison. If they do, then the pursuit of happiness, the creation of wealth and societal progress are all possible.

So, Why does Evil Persist in the World?

The individual evil that each human being is capable of is a direct result of excesses of either the aggressive side of their nature, which leads them to initiate physical force (including political force while claiming it is "for their own good") or coercion over their fellow humans; or the cowardly side of their nature which leads them to allow evil to exist unopposed and unfettered.

Often, the most barbaric societies use physical, political, economic and psychological coercion to keep their members in line as a matter of course; and they also encourage those members to use the same tactics towards others that they perceive as weaker.

Evil persists on an individual level--man vs. man-- because either the individual's rational, cognitive capacity has been relegated second to the most primitive expression of the biological imperitive of Fight or Flight mechanism; or, on the group level--men vs. men--because, the society or culture or nation tries to eliminate or suppress the expression of aggression entirely in its members in the name of the collective; and this leads to the group eventually becoming the victims of other societies or cultures that encourage aggression in the name of the collective.

What is needed is a rational balance between the two behaviors coded for in our biology; and a rational cognitive capability which can make the decision when one strategy, or its behavioral equivalent, is likely to be more effective than the other.

Andy McCarthy recently expressed this important insight:

Civilization is not an evolution of mankind but the imposition of human good on human evil.

There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem.

The men who founded our country and crafted our Constitution understood this. They understood that the “rule of law” was not a faux-civilized counterweight to the exhibition of might. Might, instead, is the firm underpinning of law and of our civilization. The Constitution explicitly recognized that the United States would have enemies; it provided Congress with the power to raise military forces that would fight them; it made the chief executive the commander-in-chief, concentrating in the presidency all the power the nation could muster to preserve itself by repelling evil. It did not regard evil as having a point of view, much less a right to counsel.(emphasis mine)

Modern "Flight" strategies such as outright appeasement or even so-called "smart diplomacy" will never work effectively (and in fact, may backfire) without also having the capacity and will to use smart, and controlled, aggression or "might". In other words, civilization--the imposition of human good over human evil--requires that we rationally control not only our biological impulse to fight at times; but also control our biological impulse to run away from a fight or negotiating unto death.

Winston Churchill once commented on the events leading up to WWII that, "Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war."

He was correct. To run away from a fight can not only lead to shame and dishonor, but all too often the fight engulfs you anyway.

Sadly, evil persists in the world because human beings are just not perfect, nor will they ever be. Not only does evil thrive when aggression and violence are loosed upon the world, but it is also encouraged and enabled even when we virtuously refuse to fight that which is evil.

We must be smart enough to distinguish when one strategy should take preference over the other; and to do that requires all an emphasis on our cognitive and rational abilities and the emotional maturity and psychological insight to accept our capabilities and limitations a humans.

FIGHT, FLIGHT AND THE PERSISTENCE OF EVIL --Part I

"Good people sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - attributed to George Orwell


Dr. Joy Bliss at Maggie's Farm wondered a while back what it is that causes people to become passive in the face of a threat to one's way of life:

Is it a psychological issue (eg masochism, which implies a sexual excitement in being dominated - or an enacted suicidal impulse), is it plain cowardice, is it a kind of hatred for one's own culture or nation? Or is it really just a unicorn and rainbow dreaminess about life (which I tend to view as a psychological defence based in denial of the hard and often cruel reality that people pursue their interests)? I have seem much of the latter, especially in women and in young men who haven't really worked yet.

This is an issue about which I have given a great deal of thought; and it is especially concerning today, when it appears that once again the scales have been tipped in the direction of passivity and appeasement when faced with a threat to American and Western values- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this post I discuss a hypothesis that addresses Dr. Bliss's question to some degree. I also believe that it explains what Wretchard referred to as "The Persistence of Evil" :

Even today it is common to hear that there was never a bad peace or a good war. Better Red than Dead. The West’s aversion to fighting, even against evil, stems from the certainty that resistance will bring punishment. And that punishment will be visited, as at Lidice, on the innocent and the children. It is the inescapability of reprisal that makes the public willing to take a chance on “getting along” rather than endure the inevitable response even to justified resistance.

Diplomacy, cowardice, appeasement, aggression and even heroism are all survival strategies that have continued to exist into the present age because they are effective in preserving human life. In other words, they work in the real world. Some of them work in the long term, and some do better in the short term; but either way, they have stood the test of time for both the individual of the species, and the species as a whole.

While an aversion to fighting may be considered from a societal standpoint to be a good thing--even noble if it preserves human life--it actually derives from the same physiological source as cowardice, which has a much more negative connotation. And, while heroic behavior in battle which saves lives is also considered noble, it derives from the same physiological origin as naked and vicious aggression.

It turns out, that from a biological standpoint, you cannot have one set of behavioral options without the other.

The "Fight" or "Flight" Response

Our discussion begins with the fact that our brains and bodies are genetically, biologically and physiologically 'hardwired' to produce certain physical/behavioral responses when we are threatened or attacked. Humans are not unique in this regard. Most animals react to a threat with a general discharge of the Sympathetic Nervous System, which prepares them equally well to either flee the oncoming threat, or to stand and fight it.

Human physiology is fairly straightforward also; and when we perceive a threat to life or survival, we physiologically respond with a burst of adrenalin (a hormone more formally known as epinephrine, a catcholamine); and that compound initiates a series of biological reactions (e.g., increasing heart rate and sending more blood to the muscles) that prepare us to do one or both of the two behavioral options: run away from the danger or 'gird our loins' and fight. These two strategies covered pretty much everything our ancient ancestors had to deal with to survive, and they lived or died depending on how effectively these strategies were utilized.

For many animals, including humans, it is not a matter of 'either-or.' Rats, for example, will almost always run away from a threat, but when cornered, they will turn and fight quite viciously.

From this biological standpoint, our bodies, have not changed much since the days of the caveman; nor have the essential behavioral strategies that derive from that hardwired biology; though our perceptions of danger and the psychological factors involved in that perception have become more complex with the rise of civilization; as have the behavioral options.

"Fight" or "Flight" Equivalents in the Modern World

In our modern world, it is no longer appropriate or even civilized--most of the time anyway--to use either hardwired behavioral strategy in it's "pristine" form on a daily basis. Imagine if you will, the office worker called on the carpet by his boss, who then reacts to this threat to his livelihood by punching the boss; or by running screaming from the boss's office. Neither response would be considered very stable--or effective.

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

The point is, that our body's biological hardware is designed to respond to perceived danger in this way, whether we like it or not. Of course, the boss yelling at us or losing our job is not the same degree of danger our ancestors used to deal with, but our bodies aren't able to tell the difference and our physiological repertoire is limited.

Hence, as homo sapiens became civilized and our interactions with each other and with our environment became more complex, the normal physiological responses of our bodies to danger have remained the same, but the behavioral expectations of civilization, culture and society -- in other words, how we act on the physiological imperative -- have changed greatly.

The modern concept of "stress" arose from the limitations placed by civilization on our biology. We can't often fight; and we can't often run away--not in the direct ways that our caveman ancestors did anyway; and when we do, significant problems often arise both for us and for our society. But our bodies still physiologically respond in the same way even if the usual behaviors that could discharge the built-up biological toxins and return us to physiological normality are gone.

Psychologically and physiologically, this tends to take a toll on our bodies; either as physical or emotional problems. Most people are aware when they are experiencing stress and the physical and emotional discomfort can be a powerful reason to change whatever behavior is causing the sensation.

Stress can also be a source of extra energy (for example in sports; or exercise of any kind, which are socially acceptable ways to manage stress) if the physical and emotional aspects of it can be converted to a less destructive form. This is where the concept of psychological defense mechanisms comes in, and the various psychological strategies our minds have created to cope with threats to the self.

Most discusssion of the Fight or Flight Response today revolves around ways to limit the development of stress, and to counteract the long-term physiological consequences of its activation. Just check out any supermarket tabloid and you will find an article promoting some new technique to "Eliminate Stress From Your Life!"

The emphasis of such stories is never placed on the value of the response in most modern situations, but on how primitive the response is, and all the lifestyle options available to minimize or even eliminate it through stress management techniques; various drugs; and culturally sanctioned policies. Most of those policies have been aimed at controlling the "Fight" side of things-- for good reasons obviously since "Fight" can lead to significant societal disruption if individuals were allowed to operate in that mode without restriction.

In fact, culture and civilization have primarily worked to suppress the Fight manifestations of our biological system; and in a peaceful, perfect utopian world--if one existed--aggression would be a serious problem.

But let's consider for a moment what would happen if the capacity for aggression were entirely eliminated from the human species.

Popular culture offers us some insight in this area. For example, in a Star Trek episode from the original series titled "The Enemy Within", a transporter malfunction results in Captain Kirk being divided into two versions of himself. One side is grandiose, aggressive, capable, clever, ambitious, paranoid and brutal; the other is kind, sensitive, empathic, passive, and depressed. The personality mix that makes Kirk an effective and capable leader--and a balanced man--has been completely disrupted by the malfunction. The so-called "good" Kirk realizes that without his so-called "bad" side, he is unable to muster any enthusiasm for life, and cannot make decisions or function with any degree of effectiveness. The "bad" Kirk is only bad without the "good" side; and the "good" side cannot live without the "bad". To be fully functional, balanced and psychologically stable, Kirk must have both both versions of himself united.

We see the same theme in the more recent movie Serenity, where the plot revolves around a interplanetary government that attempts to totally eliminate aggression from new worlds that it populates, with catastrophic effects.

Both of these science fiction stories thoughtfully -explore the personal, psychological and societal consequences of eliminating the aggressive and occasionally brutal aspects of our human nature. Without that side of human nature, human beings indeed become less aggressive, but they also become weak, ineffective, depressed, and unable to find reasons to live or act to deal with the challenges of life.

With this in mind, we can begin to appreciate the numerous benefits of our capacity for aggression, or the "fight" side of our nature when it comes to survival: without it, we are ill-equiped to live life and face its challenges or dangers, be they large or small. And that is why this mechanism has been hardwired into each individual's biology.

Fortunately for the survival of the human species, while we can have some consious control to override or dampen the instinctive behaviors arising from the cascade of physiological responses to danger; we cannot stop the physiological response itself (except through the use of drugs or extensive training in meditation). Physical aggressiveness can be altered or controlled by conscious choice; and, our psychological self has developed, under the constraints of civilization, a creatie repetoire of defensive mechanisms to either ward off or channel the aggression through various psychological strategies. Those strategies, as discussed previously, can either be positive or negative; healthy or unhealthy to the individual or the society. However, they siginifcantly have expanded modern man's ability to cope with life in ways that our remote ancestors probably never contemplated.

If we are fortunate to live in societies and cultures that help us to channel those aggressive instincts effectively we can creatively sublimate the aggression and use the instinctual energy thus obtained for any number of positive outcomes for ourselves and our society. Psychological defenses such as humor, anticipation, sublimation, or suppression , referred to as the "mature defenses", generally allow people to channel negative or destructive feelings and/or behaviors into more socially appropriate types of behavior that bring pleasure to both the user and to the world at large.

Art can be a perfect example of the mature sublimation of negative emotions to create something that is beautiful, pleasurable, and/or compelling to experience. Art may also be used to manifest destructive emotions--in which case it may bring some temporary relief of those emotions, but rarely brings pleasure either to the artist or his audience. In the latter case, it is a less mature defense called acting-out rather than sublimation. Here is an example of art used as sublimation; and here is one of art as acting-out. Competition--either in the athletic or business world--can also be a healthy channeling.

Soldiers who are trained in controlled aggression to protect and serve the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--and to possibly die in that service-- have also found an effective transmution of what might otherwise be brutal violence for the sake of brutal violence. Indeed, as George Orwell observed, "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." A well-known variation on Orwell's quote is, "Good people sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

There are, in fact, any number of professions which rely on aggressive and risk-taking skills in order to be successful.

Nevertheless, even in the best of societies where freedom reigns; there will be brutes and thugs, murderers and rapists, etc.; but when there is the rule of law then such behavior is deemed criminal and prosecuted and is clearly not societally sanctioned.

There are also societies that encourage and enable the use of the more "primitive" or "immature" psychological defensive structures; ones that thrive on denial, projection and paranoia, for example; where there is demonization of the 'other; and societally sanctioned hatred, bigotry, and persecution.

In these societies and cultures, the Fight mechanism is harnessed by the collective and used to force submission and gain power--not only over their own members, but to gain power over other human beings. Such societies are brutal and thuggish as a general rule, and they encourage their members to be that way toward each other. They encourage the worse of human traits, such as envy, greed, and jealousy--without offering any positive chanelling of those traits. Consequently, such societies destroy rather than create; tear down other societies, rather than build up their own. They may claim to be "just" or "peaceful" or even "religious", but in truth their laws are primitive and unjust; and the lives of those who live in them are often poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Let us turn now from a consideration of Fight to examining Flight.

A parallel analysis of the "Flight" mechanism also reveals that it can offer benefits for survival in the modern world. Sometimes, for example, you must run away and avoid a terrible danger you have no hope of defeating, in order to survive to fight another day. All the nobility of your compassion, caring, and a desire for peace in the world are for naught if you wind up dead.

Thus the use of man's intellectual, rhetorical and diplomatic skills have been honed over the years to deal with danger; and indeed, such skills can be very effective in negotiating the survival of individuals and societies, cultures and nations. Such skills fall short when, by their use alone, and without being willing to use the capacity for aggression effectively, the nation, society or culture and its values are subsumed by a conquering force who is not willing to listen or negotiate.

Obviously, since the dawn of civilization there has been a broadening of both the concepts of "Fight" and "Flight" to include the adoption of a wide variety of strategies and behaviors more complex than the simple alternatives which were available to our caveman ancestors.

For example (and this is not an exhaustive list), some modern "Fight" behaviors may include:

frankly aggressive, combative or violent behavior either in self-defense or proactively

argumentative, angry or hostile behavior

wars between nations or groups or gangs

the use of immature and neurotic psychological defense mechanisms such as displacement (which redirects the anger and combative behavior toward less threatening objects) or projection (which takes one's aggression and places it into others so that one can hide from it and disown it--a sort of indirect fight behavior)

use of mature psychological defense mechanisms such as humor and anticipation to prepare to defend one's self or others and to effectively mask anxiety

physical exercise; sports; competitions; art and other creative endeavors

"Flight" behaviors might include:

moving to a new location or abandoning a territory where the threat is too great

-e.g., leaving a stressful job that is taking a toll on your health for a new one
- e.g., leaving a neighborhood where crime is high and moving to a better one
-e.g., leaving a state or country where there is oppression and emigrating to a free country, or, "voting with your feet"

evading capture or submission to those who would oppress you (either physically by hiding) or mentally (by retreating into one's self)

the use of diplomatic and rhetorical skills to negotiate with enemies and opponents in order to compromise with them for one's survival; or to appease them; or to submit to them

social or psychological withdrawal to avoid dealing with the real world

-e.g., this option may include the use of substances to "run away" mentally from the real world

the use of immature psychological defense mechanisms such as denial or fantasy or wishful thinking to distort or minimize or eliminate the threat from consciousness

the use of neurotic psychological defense mechanisms such as hypochondriasis, reaction formation, passive aggression, displacement and intellectualization to distort or minimize or eliminate the threat from consciousness or to disguise it.

the use of mature psychological defense mechansims such as suppression and sublimation or others (for a full discussion of psychological defense mechanisms, see here) to transform the threatening situation into something that is able to be effectively dealt with.

"Flight" or any variation of running away can be a successful strategy particularly when you are able to run out of range of the available weapons of the enemy or out of the territory of the predator who wants to eat you. Such a strategy was extremely effective in the days of the caveman, whose weapons only included rocks, stones and spears. It's easy to outrun a spear; or to move out of the lands claimed by your enemy--do that and they will leave you alone.

It's a bit harder to outrun or dodge a bullet; even more difficult to avoid a conventional bomb; and next to impossible to run away from weapons of mass destruction such as a nuclear or biological/chemical weapon.

With the development of less personal and more long-range and impersonal tools of aggression, we begin to see how the hardwired strategy of "flight" may be reaching an evolutionary dead end--or, at least a limit to its effectiveness. "You can run, but you cannot hide" from today's weapons systems.

Undoubtedly, this reality has only caused a escalation of the use of "flight"-equivalent strategies (e.g., appeasement and submission) since literally running away from the situation becomes less and less an option. Political strategies such as diplomacy, compromise, and outright appeasement come to the forefront. As Wretchard noted from the post quoted above, the increased aversion to fighting comes from an intense desire to prevent retribution--not only towards one's self, but also to protect loved ones. This has remained a viable and important strategy because it was effective and worked. Let me repeat that: appeasement works. Compromising with one's opponents and even one's enemies, works. Lives are saved--at least in the short run. Take, for example, this analysis (which I believe is right on the mark) from the Belmont Club:

The second trump card is that Hassan Nasrallah — if given the signal by Damascus and Teheran — can plunge the region into war. That is something that terrifies Lebanon and is not viewed with relish by Israel. The BBC reported late last year that “Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has said the Lebanese Hezbollah movement now has three times as many missiles as before the 2006 Lebanon war. Mr Barak told MPs some of its 42,000 missiles could reach the southern towns of Ashkelon, Beersheba and Dimona, more than 200km (125 miles) from the border.”...

With these two cards in hand, Nasrallah can be reasonably sure that both London and Washington, having painted themselves into a corner, will sooner or later come, tail between their legs, to his door. There will be political cover; perhaps some fig leaf to cover the abjectness of it all; but the basic position is this: if Nasrallah believes neither Obama nor Brown are willing to cross him, he will spit in their face and know they will take it.

My guess? The Bearded One will get away with it. And oh, about Hezbollah’s pledge to destroy Israel? He never said it, and if he said it the sophisticates will never believe it; and even if they believe it they won’t consider that it matters. What matters is the illusion of the peace process. That must be kept going at all events. Even if Hezbollah declares itself out, they will always find a way to deal it in.

There are many people today who feel that negotiation, diplomacy and appeasement are always and everywhere superior to using any kind of aggression. For that crowd, it is not even a matter of "running away to fight another day" (which is only useful if you someday really intend to fight); they reject the use of any physical aggression under any and all circumstances. In fact, there are no human values that they would be willing to lay down their life to preserve ("nothing to live or die for; and no religion, too").

These are the very people Orwell was describing, who 'abjure' violence and are not even aware that they are kept safe by 'rough men' ready to do violence on their behalf. If anything, they tend to believe they can do away with all those 'rough men' altogether and that is precisely what is needed in order to usher in their peaceful, perfect utopia.

They forget one important detail, however, and that is that human beings are not perfect; nor are they perfectable.

In Part II, we will further discuss why this is the case and why to think otherwise is frankly delusional. We will also explore why in the 21st century, evil not only persists, but is actively encouraged by a mentality that refuses to accept the reality of human nature.

HAPPY EASTER !

In a time when the word 'hope' is bandied about by every empty politician so that it has lost all meaning; and in an age when misery, terror, oppression and evil make the yearning for justice, freedom and the good a distant dream...may you and your loved ones experience the joy and peace that real and lasting HOPE brings.... May each of you find the best within yourself and always find the courage to act to make your own life meaningful; and the world a better place for your having been in it.

Happy Easter !

THE "O-TEAM": OBAMA'S EMASCULATION OF AMERICA

Caroline Glick:

When Biden told CNN that Israel would be "ill-advised" to attack Iran's nuclear installations, he made clear that from the administration's perspective, an Israeli strike that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power is less acceptable than a nuclear-armed Iran. That is, the Obama administration prefers to see Iran become a nuclear power than to see Israel secure its very existence.

AMERICA'S BETRAYAL of its democratic allies makes each of them more vulnerable to aggression at the hands of their enemies - enemies the Obama administration is now actively attempting to appease. And as the US strengthens their adversaries at their expense, these spurned democracies must consider their options for surviving as free societies in this new, threatening, post-American environment.

For the most part, America's scorned allies lack the ability to defeat their enemies on their own. India cannot easily defeat nuclear-armed Pakistan, which itself is fragmenting into disparate anti-Indian nuclear-wielding Islamist and Islamist-supporting factions....

But to survive the current period of American strategic madness, Israel and the US's other unwanted allies must build alliances with one another - covertly if need be - to contain their adversaries in the absence of America. If they do so successfully, then the damage to global security induced by Obama's emasculation of his country will be limited. If on the other hand, they fail, then America's eventual return to its senses will likely come too late for its allies - if not for America itself. [emphasis mine]

In less than a hundred days of an Obama Administration, we have, in the spirit of hope and change, enthusiastically embarked on a path that is leading the entire community of nations into a a "global tragedy" of epic proportions.

For those of a more scientific bent, what we are witnessing now is an opportunity--a case study if you will--on the importance of leadership. Not only do the character and personality of a leader determine what the team is capable of achieving; but these are key factors which determine the world view that guides their actions in the real world.

Imagine, if you will, that John 'Hannibal' Smith, the strategically brilliant, cigar chomping, risk-taking colonel of the "A-Team" had been replaced Corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger of the 4077th in full drag, obsessed with finding a way out of a reality he despises and doesn't want to deal with.

The "A-Team" would devolve into dark comedy and effectively become the "O"-team"--just one of many nations in the alphabet of nations, and certainly not the first, or leading one. They would lose the very moral glue that binds the quirky members together and keeps them functioning effectively to begin with; and hardly be in a position to be called on to rescue innocents caught up in the evils of the modern world.

Perhaps Mark Steyn's quip this moring to K-Lo, who is concerned about the American standoff with Somali pirates holding an American hostage, encapsulates the leadership problem now facing America:

Don't worry, Kathryn, while the pirates send for reinforcements, the President sends for pizza.

.

MONEY FOR NOTHING

This is pretty scary. Listen to it all. Nick Gillespie of Reason TV narrates:




America is definitely in dire straits.

HOW THE WEST WAS LOST

[Cartoons by Chuck Asay]

Will the Security Council act today???

And, if they do manage to finally come to some useless consensus...so what? Is there anybody on the planet who thinks that North Korea cares what the UN does at this point? Kim Jong Il took a chance on O and has known for several days that he was going to get away without any consequences; and, not only that, he now can bask in the sublime knowledge that his reprehensible behavior has brought him the prestige, status and attention that he so desperately craved.

Way to go, O! That new smart diplomacy thingy in action, I presume?

VDH's take on that:

Gaddafi likes us now thanks to Obama. So do Putin & Co. The Black Caucus just returned singing Fidel Castro’s praises, who apparently likes us now thanks to Obama. No need to mention the Europeans.

But let us distinguish popularity from respect or even credibility. Take Europe: they are going to send combat troops to Afghanistan (not); stimulate the world economy (ask Ms. Merkel); have their transnational financial czar (so says Mr. Sarkozy), help stop Iran or North Korea (will we?)? Try Russia: they now like us too, since we did what? Stood firm on missile defense? Suggested moderation on energy blackmail? Asked to show deference to the former Soviet republics? Suggested Putin stop murdering dissidents abroad?

Given the world’s cheap moralizing, could not Obama have just voiced one thought? Try: “It is easy to fault President Bush for much of the ill-feeling toward the United States. That is too facile an explanation. As a global leader with often conflicting world responsibilities, America is presented with bad and worse alternatives and our choices simply will never please everyone.” That would be true and honest, given that Obama trashed Bush, but kept his Iraq and Afghanistan policies, and so far has not found any new solutions to old problems with Iran, North Korea and Russia.

The Big Guy does have some new solutions about saving the planet from global warming, though. Wretchard comments:

These guys are thinking of applying linear solutions to a complex problem they don’t even understand, to a system they can’t even model. Re-engineering the whole planet is the ultimate public works project; and is likely to cost untold sums. When the whole scheme comes a cropper, as it might, the unintended consequences may be incalculable. I happen think this is total madness, but that’s no reason it won’t happen. Maybe the crazier something is, the more likely it is to be embraced as conventional wisdom.

...But, what is wisdom? What is truth? Who cares these days? It's all relative anyway, isn't it?

WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE UN GETS...GONE

[Cartoons by Scott Stantis]

TIMELINE OF OBAMA'S TOUGH RESPONSE TO NORTH KOREA:
April 3 - North Korea Launches Rocket to test missile system but pretends it is a satellite launch
April 5 - Obama says North Korea should avoid more provacative actions
April 5 - Ambassador Susan Rice says the US will work with UN for "appropriate" response
April 5 - UN Security Council Adjourns without response to North Korea
April 5 - North Korea warns that any UN censure will result in severe consequences
April 6 - China says UN should be "prudent" in dealing with North Korea
April 6 - Krauthammer calls UN response "a farce"
April 7 - Obama and Gates Gut the Military
April 7 - Forget North Korea, Obama team readies for confrontation with...Israel
(Israel, for the uninformed and the anti-semitic left , is a US ally)
April 8 - ????


Krauthammer has it exactly right: "If he [Obama] had gone to Oz, it would have had more effect than what happened yesterday at the UN."



And, one last thought...every day that passes, a "strong" response that in any way negatively reinforces NoKo's behavior becomes more and more laughable.

The UN is a gutless, toothless, apologist for and enabler of evil and tyranny.

A SIMPLE QUESTION ABOUT "UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE"

I have a question about health insurance, and though I've been a doctor for over 30 years,I don't have an answer. So I turn to my readers and hope they can enlighten me.

Why is health insurance tied to employment?

For as long as I can remember, it has been. But I'm wondering why it absolutely positvely has to be?

I suspect that it is the big companies that provide health insurance that are the drivers of this fait accompli;, and that they have the full backing and power of the U.S. Congress behind them. But perhaps it would be better if health coverage was NOT necessarily associated with employment.

Now, hear me out. I'm going somewhere with this. The biggest complaint that the high level muckety mucks have about American health care is that there are so many people who don't have health coverage, right? This is the concern of all those who would take our country down the sociality road just so we can have the utopian ideal, i.e., "universal coverage".

Well, here's my thought. In this country pretty much every one, rich or poor, owns a TV. Pretty much every one; rich or poor owns a car. Right? Now TV's and cars come in all sizes, shapes, colors and--most importantly--prices. People buy what they can afford.

Why don't we have Best Buy's that sell a variety of insurance policies with a variety of coverage options at a variety of prices? Why don't we have Insurance Dealerships that offer medical insurance in all makes and horsepower? Everyone could pick coverage for what is most important for them or their families based on what they can afford and what they like.

Imagine the possibilities! We could have every possible combination of colors and extras; channels and luxury aspects. We could have "Mercedes" policies and "Mini Cooper" policies. Each person could decide what works for them. Any group that wanted to set up programs to help finance more expensive policies for those who want a "mid-size" policy but can only afford a "budget" policy will be free to operate. Employers could offer financial rewards to lure employees--vouchers that could be used to upgrade their insurance options; or, if they desire they could offer as a benefit some premium kind of health coverage.

I suspect that individual health insurance policies are so expensive because the insurance companies don't really have to compete for individual business. So, what if they did? And what if they broke down the coverage into smaller pieces so that consumers could pick and choose what to be covered for? What if small free-standing emergency rooms or urgent care centers or outpatient clinics offered deals to people who came there?

Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems to me that there are a lot of possibilities here for entrepreneurship and for consumers to put together coverage that fits them depending on their age and risks.

Isn't it time we think outside the constraints of the current health insurance box?

Why not? Is there something I'm missing? Why can't the free market solve the problem of "universal coverage" the same way it made it possible for everyone to own their very own TV set, cell phone, or car that uniquely fits their own personality, needs, and lifestyle?

UPDATE: Related: A reader sends in this link to the WSJ on why "Quality" care--mandated by government panels of "experts" may be dangerous to your health:

The Obama administration is working with Congress to mandate that all Medicare payments be tied to "quality metrics." But an analysis of this drive for better health care reveals a fundamental flaw in how quality is defined and metrics applied. In too many cases, the quality measures have been hastily adopted, only to be proven wrong and even potentially dangerous to patients....

A colleague who works in an ICU in a medical center in our state told us how his care of the critically ill is closely monitored. If his patients have blood sugars that rise above the metric, he must attend what he calls "re-education sessions" where he is pointedly lectured on the need to adhere to the rule. If he does not strictly comply, his hospital will be downgraded on its quality rating and risks financial loss. His status on the faculty is also at risk should he be seen as delivering low-quality care.

But this coercive approach was turned on its head last month when the New England Journal of Medicine published a randomized study, by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, of more than 6,000 critically ill patients in the ICU. Half of the patients received insulin to tightly maintain their sugar in the normal range, and the other half were on a more flexible protocol, allowing higher sugar levels. More patients died in the tightly regulated group than those cared for with the flexible protocol.

Similarly, maintaining normal blood sugar in ambulatory diabetics with vascular problems has been a key quality metric in assessing physician performance. Yet largely due to two extensive studies published in the June 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, this is now in serious doubt.

I deal with this sort of intrusion on my clinical care all the time. In our clinic we have to follow an "algorithm" that determines what medications should be given to patients based on "best" clinical practices and supposedly scientific data. The problem with this approach is that it fails to take into account the particular individual you are treating and has you make decisions based solely on group data (which is what all clinical studies do essentially, AND, in addition to that limitation, most of these studies are in often done in carefully controlled environments that hardly resemble the real world). I am not disputing expert knowledge in general, simply pointing out that some expert on a government panel in Washington D.C. may not know what is best for my specific patient in Ann Arbor, MI.

UPDATE II: A reader provides this link to an excellent article by Michael Barone which discusses the origins of employer funded health coverage and how GWB tried to change that (note that the article is from 2007):

Not many expected George W. Bush to advance a serious healthcare proposal in his State of the Union Address, and few expect anyone in Congress to act in response to it. But Bush did, and at least one member of Congress seems interested. More ought to be paying attention.

Bush's proposal in a nutshell is to end the preferential tax treatment for employer-provided health insurance. In 1943, in the midst of World War II, when wage and price controls were in effect, the government decided that employers could deduct the cost of health insurance for their employees and that employees would not be taxed on the value of the policies. This decision has saddled us with a system in which health insurance has been tied to employment, with many perverse results. Healthcare is perceived as a free good, and consumers have no incentive to take costs into account.

POSTMODERNISM, THE CORRUPTION OF TRUTH, AND THE COMING GLOBAL TRAGEDY

Stephen Hicks in his book quotes Frank Lentricchia, a noted Duke University literary critic. Postmodernism, says Lentricchia, "seeks not to find the foundation or conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change."

As I have noted in earlier posts, postmodern rhetoric explicitly rejects truth, and because of this it is indifferent to consistency and dismissive of reason.

It is because of the pervasive influence of postmodern philosophy and the ubiquitous use of postmodern rhetoric by the political left that Randall Hoven has had an epiphany. In, "Stop Making Sense", he says:

I've been suffering under the wrong paradigm for decades. All this time I thought what mattered was "reality." How wrong I've been....

Before my epiphany, if you had asked me about some problem or policy, I would have tried to analyze it -- asking, or even answering, what I thought were pertinent questions. Say we were talking health care. I would have looked up what we spend on it, life expectancies, infant mortality, disease survival rates, etc. I might have wanted to know what the cost drivers are, how much we spend for each year of life saved, how we compare to other countries. That sort of thing.

How silly of me. And how futile. The answer is simple: propose a "New Era of Responsible Health Care", fund it with a trillion dollars and assign a czar.

You need to read it all, but Hoven comes to this sad conclusion:

When we were dealing with nature, rational thinking anchored in reality was key. It led to those transportation, communication, health and agricultural advances, plus plenty of labor saving devices and methods. You might think it was high-minded liberalism that ended slavery. Was it just coincidence that an institution that had flourished for multiple millennia ended during the industrial revolution?

But when the adversary is not nature, but fellow men, rationality as normally considered is out the window. We live in a world where Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are taken seriously. Where Libya is given the chair on the Human Rights commission at the UN. Where heads of state genuinely believe sheep farts are dangerously heating up the planet.

As Vladimir Lenin was commenting on "all those starving people who are starting to eat each other, who are dying by the millions," Walter Duranty was the New York Times Moscow bureau chief saying things were just wonderful there. He won a Pulitzer Prize for that.

Here is the awful truth: it's not what is true, it's what you can convince others to believe.

Bill Clinton knew this instinctively. When most of us learned about logical fallacies, for example, we thought of them as things to be avoided since they could lead us astray -- away from truth. But to Bill Clinton, those fallacies were something to adopt, since they are effective ways to persuade.

He beat an impeachment rap for one simple reason: he was popular. It had nothing to do with being innocent, or what I had called, prior to my epiphany, reality. He beat the rap because people liked him.

It's neither the law nor the facts, but what you can get the jury to do.

While absorbing that concept, consider that about one third of the US population thinks the phrase, "to each according to his need, from each according to his abilities," is in the US Constitution. One third also believes that the US government conspired in the 911 attacks. A majority thinks sheep farts have more to do with temperature variations on earth than the ball of nuclear fire the size of 1.3 million earths that is eight light-minutes away.

And now, as stock markets plummet around the globe and our national debt is set to triple in just two years, the number of people who believe we are on the right track has tripled.[emphasis mine]

Rather than setting you free, in the postmodern world, the truth just keeps you from believing what you--or someone else--wants to believe; and therefore it must be banned from polite conversation.

In this "innovative", postmodern world view you are permitted-nay encouraged!--to break free from the oppressive shackles of reality and venture into the realm of a "higher" reality, where fools like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank are taken seriously. And where a grandiose and glib, but charismatic man deeply immersed in the contradictory discourse of postmodern rhetoric and the collectivist ideology of "social justice" is elected President of the U.S.

Jonah Goldberg at The Corner diagrees with that President on what is the most dangerous leagacy of the Cold War--and it is not nuclear weapons:

To me, the most obvious dangerous legacy of the Cold War would have to be the damage the Soviets did to the world. I don't mean the millions they murdered; those dead do not threaten us now, even if they should haunt us.

I mean the relentless distortion of the truth, the psychological violence they visited on the West and the World via their useful idiots and their agents. I'm thinking not merely of the intellectual corruption of the American Left (which even folks like Richard Rorty had to concede), but the corruption of reformers and their movements around the globe. Soviet propaganda still contaminates, while nuclear fallout does not. Lies about America, the West, and the nature of democratic capitalism live on throughout the third world and in radioactive pockets on American campuses.[emphasis mine]

In order to survive their crushing defeat in the Cold War, the remnants of Soviet communism, along with failed Marxist, socialists and communists around the globe had to evolve and mutate into a form that would not be easily recognized; but the fundamental toxicity of their ideology remained as potent as ever. And it is these various mutations that are truly the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War.

In postmodern philosophy and rhetoric, they found the perfect epistemological, ethical and political vessel to reassert their poison. And that is why, despite the untold misery and the millions of dead that were the result of the implementation of their political policies, their ideology never quite made it to the garbage dump of history.

The politically useful concept of "social justice" is now the dominant philosophy forced down the throats of teachers, who obediently spoon feed it to their students from kindergarden through college; while in academia they use "science" to demonize their enemies.

Additionally, it is postmodern philosophy which is at the heart of such irrational concepts as political correctness, multiculturalism and radical environmentalism, three of the four pillars of the socialist/communist--or, more accurately, the neo-Marxist--revival that has been staged in this first decade of the 21st century.

Remember that postmodernism eschews truth and those who adhere to its ideas prefer to exercise power to force social change. They live in a world of contradiction and emotion. Their strategy is not to persuade people to accept their ideas, but to confuse them; to distort the truth, propagate lies and smears; and to use whatever rhetoric is necessary to accomplish their purposes.

Since rhetorical skill is essential to accomplish their purposes, it is little wonder that a trancendently inexperienced but rhetorically gifted nobody like Barack Obama would rise to the top of the [garbage] heap. His career has been meteoric, and is based entirely on words, not deeds or accomplishments. In truth, he is the quintessential political postmodern demagogue; skilled in the neo-Marxist/fascist talking points and easily able to convince all who hear him of his passionate committment to "social justice," (better understood as the redistribution of wealth) and universal peace and brotherhood (better known as the appeasement and enabling of evil).

Nothing that is going on now makes any sense, unless you understand that "sense" is not a useful concept when one is talking about postmodernism. That's why to get out of debt we are spending more money and digging deeper; that's why to defend against the North Korean missile threat, we are cutting down on our missile defense...and so on. Truth does not matter; all that matters is that people believe it is true

As Mark Steyn says in his response to Goldberg's post,

It's not just embarassing to hear the so-called "leader of the free world" talking like a 14-year old who's been up in his room listening to "Imagine" for too long. I fear this presidency has the makings of global tragedy.

WHO IS JOHN GALT ?

You are. (go and read it all)

Never forget it.

Here's a "trailer" for the book:



Atlas Shrugged is >50 years old...and it is #18 on Amazon's list this week.

"RHETORICAL CONTRADICTIONS" EXPLAINED

If you wonder what I meant by rhetorical contradictions in the previous post, Victor Davis Hanson gives a perfect explanation while discussing why the "Hussein" in Obama's name is not allowed to be spoken here, but is trumpeted abroad:

All of which brings up interesting rules of usage with the name "Hussein":

1) It is forbidden at home; any American who employs the tripartite presidential name does so only to fan religious, racial, or ethnic prejudice.

2) It is encouraged abroad both in Europe and the Middle East (cf. the al-Arabiya interview) both to establish our president's multicultural fides and sensitivity to Muslims, and to distance himself from our past illiberal foreign policy and attitudes.

3) Rule #2 only applies to the president himself. Even liberal journalists abroad are not allowed to say "Hussein" even in the most progressive of contexts.

and further:

Mark Steyn wondered why the silence about the Korean rocket. Other than a canny Clintonian sense that weekend news is dead news, I think it may be because we know the presidential response: Just as spending and borrowing became fiscal responsibility, "stimulus," and halving the new deficit; just as serially trashing Bush became "preferring to look forward rather than backward," so too watching the Koreans showcase their new intercontinental ballistic missile to global nuclear customers becomes a rhetorical occasion to promise a new non-nuclear world.

BTW, Here is how Stephen Hicks in Explaining Postmodernism put forth the concept of using contradictory discourses as a political strategy:

In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consisteny can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims:

- On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.
- On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.
- Values are subjective--but sexism and racism are really evil
- Technology is bad and destructive--and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.
- Tolerance is good and dominance is bad--but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next.

RETREATING FROM THE FREE MARKET...AND FROM FREEDOM

This is very discouraging, but not unexpected (hat tip: The Corner). Keith Hennessey compares two statements of the G-20 Summit, one from November, 2008:

12. We recognize that these reforms will only be successful if grounded in a commitment to free market principles, including the rule of law, respect for private property, open trade and investment, competitive markets, and efficient, effectively regulated financial systems. These principles are essential to economic growth and prosperity and have lifted millions out of poverty, and have significantly raised the global standard of living. Recognizing the necessity to improve financial sector regulation, we must avoid over-regulation that would hamper economic growth and exacerbate the contraction of capital flows, including to developing countries.

Let’s parse it a bit:
“… a commitment to free market principles …”
“… rule of law …”
“… respect for private property …”
“… open trade and investment …”
“… competitive markets …”
“… and efficient, effectively regulated financial systems.”
“… we must avoid over-regulation that would hamper economic growth and exacerbate the contraction of capital flows …”

And one from the G-20 Summit just completed:

3. We start from the belief that prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared; and that our global plan for recovery must have at its heart the needs and jobs of hard-working families, not just in developed countries but in emerging markets and the poorest countries of the world too; and must reflect the interests, not just of today’s population, but of future generations too. We believe that the only sure foundation for sustainable globalisation and rising prosperity for all is an open world economy based on market principles, effective regulation, and strong global institutions.

Parsing this new language:
“… a commitment to free market principles …” has been replaced by “… based on market principles …”. Note that the word “free” is nowhere in the document.
“… rule of law …” is nowhere in the document
“… private property …” is nowhere in the document
“… open trade and investment …” has been replaced by “… open world economy …” (This one is fine, I think.)
“… competitive markets …” and the word “competitive” are nowhere in the document
“… efficient, effectively regulated financial systems” has been replaced by “effective regulation, and strong global institutions.”
The over-regulation caution is gone.

The leaders of the G-20 only reflect the sentiments of the countries they represent after all; and the populations of those countries have become entitled, dependent, and incredibly whiney...in short, they are great fodder for the postmodern socialist welfare state where morality is relative...and mandated by the State. As we retreat from the free market, we retreat from both freedom and from morality.

Capitalism's incredible production of wealth is only a side-effect that occurs when political freedom is present. It has been argued, and I agree, that both a free market (economic freedom) and political freedom are prerequisites for moral behavior; and both were the essential elements that resulted in the rise of western civilization and the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The moral case for capitalism is not taught at our universities; nor is it argued much in our culture; and certainly not in our churches. In fact it has been more or less universally accepted that systems such as communism and socialism are morally superior to capitalism--even though in practice such systems have led to the death and enslavement of millions; and to those unlucky enough not to die from them, those systems have led to the most horrible shrinking and wasting of the human soul. Not to mention the shrinking of opportunity and wealth and the pathetic economic conditions of the people unfortunate enought to live in those countries have to deal with.

The truth is that socialism, communism, or any kind of religious fundamentalism--any kind of totalitarian system, in fact-- are not compatible with moral behavior.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or by religion (on pain of death) or both; if human activity and behavior is legislated and regulated or ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.),then how can it be argued that one's actions are moral? They are not voluntary, but coerced.

Morality, however, is a matter of choice, not mandate. One cannot hold a person responsible for actions that are coerced or forced from him. Morality can only exist when freedom of action exists. Moral actions in any field of human endeavor require freedom. [That's why our postmodern President, for whom uttering contradictions are similar to breathing, can propose a "mandatory volunteer corps"].

Conduct or behavior may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed. It is only when we are free to act that we can exercise moral judgement.

Which brings us to a capitalist system. Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it possible to be moral, since true benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state; or by a religion--on pain of death or other consequence; or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

This is now the moment when the rise of liberty began to slow around the world; when moral choice began to disappear from human behavior and interaction. Expect to see an exponential increase in postmodern contradictory rhetoric to explain away all those messy moral contradictions; even as we retreat further and further from the free market... and freedom.