Sunday, June 07, 2009
HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE?
Pretty stupid, apparently.
You've got to wonder how long this "It's all Bush's fault" is going to fly with the American public. Pathetic.
ISLAMOSCHMOOZING
Mark Steyn analyzes the Savior of the World's address to Islam:
Obama is not the only one, albeit he's one of the more powerful, who doesn't seem to mind the ongoing Islamist rape of the world. O speaks for the world in saying (Rich Lowrey, quoted by Steyn),"We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don’t hate us and murder us in return.”
OTOH, rape appears to be ok for some. In fact, we have
Gilders, whatever you may think of him, has nailed the fundamental problem with both Obama and de Rijke (and throw in Evan Thomas and most of the clueless left): they are desperate to deny reality.
The former enables and encourages the worse and most barbaric aspects of Islam by granting it moral equivalence with the West to maintain his own unrivaled grandiosity and self-delusion; the latter is willing to overlook being physically violated rather than confront her own cognitive dissonance and the delusions of her leftist ideology.
The leftist journalist raped by the Taliban is exactly the kind of person who worships the emptiness and vacuity of an Obama; and even depends on him to maintain her delusional world view, which habitually excuses the atrocities committed in the name of Islam while blaming America for all the evil in the world.
Islamoschmoozing is simply Obama's hopeychangey foreign policy strategy of appeasement. As hard as it is to believe, Obama and his denial of reality 'out-UNs' the UN and 'out-Europeans' the Europeans in taking the appeasement of Islam to new and greater heights of appeasementdom.
UPDATE: A reckoning is coming--reality doesn't like to be ignored for too long:
Overseas, the coolest president in history was giving a speech. Or, as the official press release headlined it on the State Department website, “President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World from Cairo.”
Let’s pause right there: It’s interesting how easily the words “the Muslim world” roll off the tongues of liberal secular progressives who’d choke on any equivalent reference to “the Christian world.” When such hyper-alert policemen of the perimeter between church and state endorse the former but not the latter, they’re implicitly acknowledging that Islam is not merely a faith but a political project, too. There is an “Organization of the Islamic Conference,” which is already the largest single voting bloc at the U.N. and is still adding new members. Imagine if someone proposed an “Organization of the Christian Conference” that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and presidents, and vote as a bloc in transnational bodies. But, of course, there is no “Christian world”: Europe is largely post-Christian and, as President Obama bizarrely asserted to a European interviewer last week, America is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Perhaps we’re eligible for membership in the OIC.
[...]
Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext — the absence of American will — became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps by “no single nation” he means the “global community” should pick and choose, which means the U.N. Security Council, which means the Big Five, which means that Russia and China will pursue their own murky interests and that, in the absence of American leadership, Britain and France will reach their accommodations with a nuclear Iran, a nuclear North Korea, and any other psycho-state minded to join them.
Obama is not the only one, albeit he's one of the more powerful, who doesn't seem to mind the ongoing Islamist rape of the world. O speaks for the world in saying (Rich Lowrey, quoted by Steyn),"We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don’t hate us and murder us in return.”
OTOH, rape appears to be ok for some. In fact, we have
...left-wing Dutch journalist, Joanie de Rijke, who went to Afghanistan to conduct a sympathetic interview with Taliban jihadists who had just killed 10 French troops. Naturally, she was abducted and serially raped for six days. And now she is angry ... not at the chief Taliban thug — who showed her "respect," though, regrettably, "he could not control his testosterone" — but at the Dutch and Belgian governments who refused to pay the $2 million ransom the jihadists demanded. And of course, in the Netherlands, the media and the government are furious at Geert Wilders for pointing out the obvious:This story is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. Rape? Well, I would put this into perspective, says the leftist journalist: the Taliban are not monsters. Our elites prefer to deny reality rather than face it. One would expect: a woman is being raped and finds this unbearable. But this journalist is not angry because the Muslim involved also showed respect. Our elites, whether they are politicians, journalists, judges, subsidy gobblers or civil servants, are totally clueless. Plain common sense has been dumped in order to deny reality. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims – that is the one thing they will condemn.
Gilders, whatever you may think of him, has nailed the fundamental problem with both Obama and de Rijke (and throw in Evan Thomas and most of the clueless left): they are desperate to deny reality.
The former enables and encourages the worse and most barbaric aspects of Islam by granting it moral equivalence with the West to maintain his own unrivaled grandiosity and self-delusion; the latter is willing to overlook being physically violated rather than confront her own cognitive dissonance and the delusions of her leftist ideology.
The leftist journalist raped by the Taliban is exactly the kind of person who worships the emptiness and vacuity of an Obama; and even depends on him to maintain her delusional world view, which habitually excuses the atrocities committed in the name of Islam while blaming America for all the evil in the world.
Islamoschmoozing is simply Obama's hopeychangey foreign policy strategy of appeasement. As hard as it is to believe, Obama and his denial of reality 'out-UNs' the UN and 'out-Europeans' the Europeans in taking the appeasement of Islam to new and greater heights of appeasementdom.
UPDATE: A reckoning is coming--reality doesn't like to be ignored for too long:
Obama’s make-over will have positive short-term effects, as he reminds the world ad nauseam that he is black, sorta, kinda from a Muslim family, and the son of an African who is more like the world than he like most Americans-and not George Bush and not a thieving capitalist and not a warmongering imperialist and not (fill in the blanks). (My favorite Cairo line was the apology on Gitmo where inmates have laptops and Mediterranean food, spoken to millions whose societies kill and maim tens of thousands in Gulags on a yearly basis.)
But in the long run?
He hits against human nature....
Only someone who has not been in the real world, but only marketed rhetoric without consequences (e.g., if Obama had a bad day organizing, or legislating, was he fired?) could believe such things.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
READY AND WILLING TO DRINK THE KOOL-AID
It's impossible to fake this level of insanity and mindlessness. Power Line has the details.
The question is, how many who worship at the People's Temple of Obama will unquestioningly follow Newsweek's lead....?
GOOD THING WE HAD THAT BRILLIANT OBAMA RECOVERY PLAN
The Obama Administration comes face to face with reality: May's unemployment continues the trend (read the link for complete explanation):
I wonder what these numbers would have looked like WITHOUT the magical Stimulus Plan? Somehow, I don't think they would have been worse. Watch for amazing spin; and sadly we'll probably have to listen to another boring lecture from the One about sacrifice --and hope, of course.
I know what I'm hoping....
I wonder what these numbers would have looked like WITHOUT the magical Stimulus Plan? Somehow, I don't think they would have been worse. Watch for amazing spin; and sadly we'll probably have to listen to another boring lecture from the One about sacrifice --and hope, of course.
I know what I'm hoping....
Friday, June 05, 2009
THE BARBARIANS ARE STILL AT THE GATES
Back before the election last year, Charles Krauthammer wrote an editorial that came to mind today after President Obama did his Messiah interpretation in Egypt. Krauthammer said:
Well, as it turned out, America elected the guy who seems fundamentally (and morally) unable to tell the difference between the lion and the lamb.
As much as I despise most of Obama's economic policies and 'social justice' agenda, I still have some faith that the American public will wake up and eventually figure out the path that the community organizer-in-chief is taking America down and vote the guy out of office in the next election cycle. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but if the American electorate is so far gone in its narcissism and entitlement, then I figure it is all over for American economy anyway. We would then inevitably segue into a European style social democracy (or worse) and softly and silently fade away on the world stage into a second or third-class power.
What frightens me even more than the economic doom scenario, is the fact that the Obamessiah does not seem particularly content with being President of only the US. His grandiose fantasy ("I have a gift, Harry") is being the Savior of the entire world. And to make this wonderfully malignant fantasy come to be, he is very willing to pander and suck up to the most dysfunctional and dangerous psychopaths in the world.
This is not Jimmy Carter redux; this is Jimmy Carter on steroids.
When I say dysfunctional, I am of course referring to the various megalomaniacal leaders in the Middle East and the numerous Islamic fanatics with whom we are at war. Obama in a parallel megalomaniacal fashion, seems intent on setting up an "Obama vs Osama", winner take all competition. The old saying about not taking a knife to a gun fight comes to mind--except that Obama doesn't even think he needs to bring a knife. He's counting on his magical, hypnotic voice and unflappably vague postmodern personality.
Forgive me for not believing in this messiah and his messianic mission, but I sincerely doubt it will work, except to make the fanatics laugh and rub their hands in anticipation of destroying what they correctly perceive to be a weak and ineffectual enemy.
The barbarians are still at the gates; and they, like Obama and his cult of followers on the left, have a vision of a weakened, emasculated America as a motivational fantasy...and no amount of hopeychangey fairy dust coming from a man of inaction is going to divert them from their primary purpose of destroying America and the west.
UPDATE: Mona Charen has more thoughts on "The Diplomacy of Wishful Thinking".
And here's a nice picture of the Hamas news conference to go along with it (hat tip: The Corner). They look like peaceful chaps--lambs, really--don't they? I'm sure they're taking Obama's lovely rhetoric to heart. Update II: It just occurred to me that this photo is an excellent example of Burka-Envy !
Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
Well, as it turned out, America elected the guy who seems fundamentally (and morally) unable to tell the difference between the lion and the lamb.
As much as I despise most of Obama's economic policies and 'social justice' agenda, I still have some faith that the American public will wake up and eventually figure out the path that the community organizer-in-chief is taking America down and vote the guy out of office in the next election cycle. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but if the American electorate is so far gone in its narcissism and entitlement, then I figure it is all over for American economy anyway. We would then inevitably segue into a European style social democracy (or worse) and softly and silently fade away on the world stage into a second or third-class power.
What frightens me even more than the economic doom scenario, is the fact that the Obamessiah does not seem particularly content with being President of only the US. His grandiose fantasy ("I have a gift, Harry") is being the Savior of the entire world. And to make this wonderfully malignant fantasy come to be, he is very willing to pander and suck up to the most dysfunctional and dangerous psychopaths in the world.
This is not Jimmy Carter redux; this is Jimmy Carter on steroids.
When I say dysfunctional, I am of course referring to the various megalomaniacal leaders in the Middle East and the numerous Islamic fanatics with whom we are at war. Obama in a parallel megalomaniacal fashion, seems intent on setting up an "Obama vs Osama", winner take all competition. The old saying about not taking a knife to a gun fight comes to mind--except that Obama doesn't even think he needs to bring a knife. He's counting on his magical, hypnotic voice and unflappably vague postmodern personality.
Forgive me for not believing in this messiah and his messianic mission, but I sincerely doubt it will work, except to make the fanatics laugh and rub their hands in anticipation of destroying what they correctly perceive to be a weak and ineffectual enemy.
The barbarians are still at the gates; and they, like Obama and his cult of followers on the left, have a vision of a weakened, emasculated America as a motivational fantasy...and no amount of hopeychangey fairy dust coming from a man of inaction is going to divert them from their primary purpose of destroying America and the west.
UPDATE: Mona Charen has more thoughts on "The Diplomacy of Wishful Thinking".
And here's a nice picture of the Hamas news conference to go along with it (hat tip: The Corner). They look like peaceful chaps--lambs, really--don't they? I'm sure they're taking Obama's lovely rhetoric to heart. Update II: It just occurred to me that this photo is an excellent example of Burka-Envy !
Thursday, June 04, 2009
REJECT THE LEFT'S SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE RACISM AND BIGOTRY
In the last few days I have seen several editorial cartoons with the following theme:
Let me spell the message out for Republicans: oppose Sotomayor and you will lose the "Hispanic" vote.
Oh the horror!
The sad thing is that Republican strategists are all aflutter at that terrible possibility. I submit that is the case only because Republicans have accepted the fundamental narrative of the left and have bought into the whole system of identity politics that dominate political behavior today.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
It's the same refrain you hear repeatedly these days in our multiculti, PC, and increasingly racist society. Yes, I said racist--and I'm talking about the definition of racism that Martin Luther King used; not the postmodern version. But the postmodern left has made this kind of racism cool and chic; and is preoccupied to the point of obsession with race and sex and gender and identity in our society.
It is sick. It is insane. And it is destroying what the idea of America has always represented.
In fact, just as America was on the verge of doing away with such discrimination; just as the content of one's character was beginning to take hold as an essential aspect of the American Dream, the political left and the Democrats decreed that one's skin color--and gender and sexual orientation and ethic origins and etc. etc.--were far more important considerations.
Just as Blacks were about to permanently throw off the chains that had bound them since the founding of the Republic, along came the do-gooders of the left who have now permanently chained them to the cult of victimhood--and they intend to do the same for women, gays, and all the other "poor and oppressed" groups they supposedly champion. Eventualy, the individual people who are lumped into these victimhood groups are going to wake up to the fact that they are being used to achieve power for these leftist elites; and that the left is completely and irrevocably invested in keeping them "poor and oppressed."
How can you fail to notice that all politics today is a matter of carefully pandering to one identity group after another? The way to power is to promise every group what they want. If you are really good at it--like the Democrats--then you can make as many contradictory promises as you want.
No one cares about you as an individual anymore (if anyone in Congress ever did); now, the only thing that is important is what identity group you belong to. You are appealed to as a woman; as an Hispanic; as a Black; as a Gay and every effort is taken by political parties to appeal to large identity groups--the "Hispanic Vote", the "Black Vote", the "Women's Vote", the "Gay and Lesbian Vote" and so on.
How much more racist or sexist or bigoted than this can we get?
If the Democratic Party and its lunatic leftist base has its way, America will continue its devolution into bickering and competing identity/victim groups. In fact, America is well on its way to becoming the most whiny, entitled, and bigoted nation on the face of the earth because of the new and socially acceptable hate politics of the left.
I am pleading with the Republican Party to resolutely reject the postmodern philosophical premises that are the foundation of such defective thinking.
Why can't the Republican Party once again be the party of the individual? Why should we pander to all these identity groups? WE ARE ALL AMERICANS and that is all that matters--or should matter.
Screw the Hispanic vote. Screw the Black vote. Screw the White vote or Women's vote. Forget the LGBT.
And speak to people as individuals.
GO FOR THE INTELLIGENT VOTE. GO AFTER THE SANE VOTE. SPEAK TO THOSE OF US WHO DON'T GIVE A FLYING F*** WHAT COLOR OR CREED OR ETHIC ORIGIN A PERSON HAPPENS TO BE.
Appeal to the BEST within each person. Stand for their individual liberty and make their pusuit of freedom your goal.
Aren't you all tired of this multicultural insanity being foisted on us by the left? Aren't you all tired of being classified as some sort of victim? Aren't you ANGRY that nobody cares anymore what you think as an individual? That you are defined only by the color of your skin? Or by the presence or absence of an X-chromosome in your genetic makeup?
If the Republican Party wants to to pick itself up and get back on its feet, it must reject this world view, and in particular, it must reject the left's rhetorical template. Appeal to people as individuals. Don't mimic those who are destroying this great country with their new racism. Don't pander to these victim groups whose outrage and entitlement has no end; and whose leaders are only intent on getting a share of some pie at the expense of other groups (there is a "food chain" of victimhood that the left cultivates). Those who buy into this ideoogical and rhetorical template are fundamentally unable to understand or appreciate that success in America is NOT a zero-sum game. Success is open to all who are willing to work for it, because America recognizes that you are free to pursue your life as you see fit.
At least it used to.
As long as Republicans buy into the left's ideological template, they will fail--because quite frankly, they cannot win at this bigotry game for one simple reason: the left has made it their mission to spread the propaganda that the source of all the oppression and victimization is from the right. They have the media and the Academy on their side, because both have been steeped in this toxic distortion for decades now.
The only way to escape this insidious PC box that has been erected around American thinking is to reject the narrative that has been foisted on us by the left. Reject the left's new and socially acceptable bigotry--which would be Martin Luther King's worse nightmare.
Make it the Republican goal to reasonably and carefully point out all the unbelievable contradicitons and cognitive dissonance of these regressive thugs of the left who have taken over the Democratic Party and deformed it so that it is unrecognizable and no longer stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Democrats don't even stand for "Big" Government anymore --they stand for Humongous Government, and a slow and steady slide into socialism and collectivism.
The Republicans can be the party of the individual. It can once again stand up for Freedom and economic liberty. It can stand for the values of personal responsibility, honesty, integrity and hard work.
Reject Multiculturalism. Reject Political Correctness. Reject identity politics. Reject moral relativism. Speak to Americans as individuals who each have their own dream and show them how embracing your Party can give them the opportunity to be free to achieve that dream by cutting Humongous Government and decreasing their taxes. By treating them as responsible adults and not as helpless children or pathetic victims.
Take America back.
UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson asks, "Is it going to be race and resentment--all the time?" Well, yes. If the left has its way.
Let me spell the message out for Republicans: oppose Sotomayor and you will lose the "Hispanic" vote.
Oh the horror!
The sad thing is that Republican strategists are all aflutter at that terrible possibility. I submit that is the case only because Republicans have accepted the fundamental narrative of the left and have bought into the whole system of identity politics that dominate political behavior today.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
It's the same refrain you hear repeatedly these days in our multiculti, PC, and increasingly racist society. Yes, I said racist--and I'm talking about the definition of racism that Martin Luther King used; not the postmodern version. But the postmodern left has made this kind of racism cool and chic; and is preoccupied to the point of obsession with race and sex and gender and identity in our society.
It is sick. It is insane. And it is destroying what the idea of America has always represented.
In fact, just as America was on the verge of doing away with such discrimination; just as the content of one's character was beginning to take hold as an essential aspect of the American Dream, the political left and the Democrats decreed that one's skin color--and gender and sexual orientation and ethic origins and etc. etc.--were far more important considerations.
Just as Blacks were about to permanently throw off the chains that had bound them since the founding of the Republic, along came the do-gooders of the left who have now permanently chained them to the cult of victimhood--and they intend to do the same for women, gays, and all the other "poor and oppressed" groups they supposedly champion. Eventualy, the individual people who are lumped into these victimhood groups are going to wake up to the fact that they are being used to achieve power for these leftist elites; and that the left is completely and irrevocably invested in keeping them "poor and oppressed."
How can you fail to notice that all politics today is a matter of carefully pandering to one identity group after another? The way to power is to promise every group what they want. If you are really good at it--like the Democrats--then you can make as many contradictory promises as you want.
No one cares about you as an individual anymore (if anyone in Congress ever did); now, the only thing that is important is what identity group you belong to. You are appealed to as a woman; as an Hispanic; as a Black; as a Gay and every effort is taken by political parties to appeal to large identity groups--the "Hispanic Vote", the "Black Vote", the "Women's Vote", the "Gay and Lesbian Vote" and so on.
How much more racist or sexist or bigoted than this can we get?
If the Democratic Party and its lunatic leftist base has its way, America will continue its devolution into bickering and competing identity/victim groups. In fact, America is well on its way to becoming the most whiny, entitled, and bigoted nation on the face of the earth because of the new and socially acceptable hate politics of the left.
I am pleading with the Republican Party to resolutely reject the postmodern philosophical premises that are the foundation of such defective thinking.
Why can't the Republican Party once again be the party of the individual? Why should we pander to all these identity groups? WE ARE ALL AMERICANS and that is all that matters--or should matter.
Screw the Hispanic vote. Screw the Black vote. Screw the White vote or Women's vote. Forget the LGBT.
And speak to people as individuals.
GO FOR THE INTELLIGENT VOTE. GO AFTER THE SANE VOTE. SPEAK TO THOSE OF US WHO DON'T GIVE A FLYING F*** WHAT COLOR OR CREED OR ETHIC ORIGIN A PERSON HAPPENS TO BE.
Appeal to the BEST within each person. Stand for their individual liberty and make their pusuit of freedom your goal.
Aren't you all tired of this multicultural insanity being foisted on us by the left? Aren't you all tired of being classified as some sort of victim? Aren't you ANGRY that nobody cares anymore what you think as an individual? That you are defined only by the color of your skin? Or by the presence or absence of an X-chromosome in your genetic makeup?
If the Republican Party wants to to pick itself up and get back on its feet, it must reject this world view, and in particular, it must reject the left's rhetorical template. Appeal to people as individuals. Don't mimic those who are destroying this great country with their new racism. Don't pander to these victim groups whose outrage and entitlement has no end; and whose leaders are only intent on getting a share of some pie at the expense of other groups (there is a "food chain" of victimhood that the left cultivates). Those who buy into this ideoogical and rhetorical template are fundamentally unable to understand or appreciate that success in America is NOT a zero-sum game. Success is open to all who are willing to work for it, because America recognizes that you are free to pursue your life as you see fit.
At least it used to.
As long as Republicans buy into the left's ideological template, they will fail--because quite frankly, they cannot win at this bigotry game for one simple reason: the left has made it their mission to spread the propaganda that the source of all the oppression and victimization is from the right. They have the media and the Academy on their side, because both have been steeped in this toxic distortion for decades now.
The only way to escape this insidious PC box that has been erected around American thinking is to reject the narrative that has been foisted on us by the left. Reject the left's new and socially acceptable bigotry--which would be Martin Luther King's worse nightmare.
Make it the Republican goal to reasonably and carefully point out all the unbelievable contradicitons and cognitive dissonance of these regressive thugs of the left who have taken over the Democratic Party and deformed it so that it is unrecognizable and no longer stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Democrats don't even stand for "Big" Government anymore --they stand for Humongous Government, and a slow and steady slide into socialism and collectivism.
The Republicans can be the party of the individual. It can once again stand up for Freedom and economic liberty. It can stand for the values of personal responsibility, honesty, integrity and hard work.
Reject Multiculturalism. Reject Political Correctness. Reject identity politics. Reject moral relativism. Speak to Americans as individuals who each have their own dream and show them how embracing your Party can give them the opportunity to be free to achieve that dream by cutting Humongous Government and decreasing their taxes. By treating them as responsible adults and not as helpless children or pathetic victims.
Take America back.
UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson asks, "Is it going to be race and resentment--all the time?" Well, yes. If the left has its way.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
PSYCHOLOGICAL INSIGHT
I am busy with work today, so here are a few particularly insightful psychological musings.
First, Jeanne Donovan compares Republicans to battered spouses--and makes some really excellent psychological points:
Read it all. And then check this out:
Read the whole piece. VDH calls it "Bush Obsessive Compulsive Disorder", which I don't think quite fits the pathology. I think we are dealing with more of a grandiose narcissism , cool and aloof; and too threatened to recognize anyone else's ideas or existence--as a Tigerhawk post reminds us:
And last, but certainly not least, I've been meaning to link to ShrinkWrapped's excellent series on "The Modern Left: A Marriage of Postmodernism and Narcissism"
Part I begins:
Be sure to read Parts II and III.
First, Jeanne Donovan compares Republicans to battered spouses--and makes some really excellent psychological points:
If we are to understand the root cause of the difficulties now faced by the Republican Party, our current Republican leaders should each look in the mirror and ask themselves the following questions:
-Do you feel nervous when you're around a liberal?
Are you scared of disagreeing with liberals?
-Do you remain silent in front of a liberal because you want them to like you?
-Do you try to please a liberal, only to be rebuked for your efforts?
-Do liberals criticize you, or humiliate you in front of other people?
-Do you have to control your behavior or your language to avoid their anger and ridicule?
-Do you feel pressured by them to participate in activities you find offensive?
-Do liberals mock you when your express profoundly held beliefs about capitalism, religion, sex and gender issues?
-Do liberals demand that you think, speak, and even support ideas that are disgusting to you?
-Are liberals always calling you names?
-Do liberals repeatedly and wrongly accuse you of being something you're not, such as racist, homophobic, and uncaring?
-Do liberals tell you that if you changed, they wouldn't have to say these awful things about you?
-Do you believe that if you changed, the liberal would like you more?
Are liberals jealous because you have made a success of your life?
-Do liberals blame you for everything that goes wrong in their lives?
-Do liberals tell lies about you?
-Do liberals threaten your freedom of movement?
-Do liberals interfere with the way you want to raise, discipline and educate your children?
-Do liberals make you feel like you are wrong, stupid, crazy or inadequate?
-Do liberals attempt to prevent you from doing what makes you happy?
-Do liberals put roadblocks in your way when you try to escape their plans for you?
-Do liberals attempt to control your money, your associations, and your goals?
Are you expected to do things to please liberals, rather than to please yourself?
-Do you feel that, with liberals, nothing you ever do is good enough?
-Do liberals claim it's your own fault they are attacking you, or claim that they were "just joking" when they hurled epithets at you?
-Have liberals ever scared you by threatening to get even, or to ruin your reputation, or by suggesting that they are the only people standing between you and the pitchforks?
If you answered "yes" to most or all of these questions, you are have become the victim in an abusive relationship....
Read it all. And then check this out:
Last July I wrote a column entitled “Barack W. Bush” outlining how candidate Barack Obama was strangely emulating Bush policies — even as he was trashing the president.
Nearly a year later, President Obama has continued that schizophrenia, criticizing Bush while keeping in place Bush’s anti-terrorism protocols. The result of this Bush Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is that, thanks to Obama, history will soon begin reassessing George W. Bush’s presidency in a more positive light.
Why? Because the more Obama feels compelled to trash Bush, the more he draws attention to the fact that he is copying — or in some cases falling short of — his predecessor. He seems to wish to frame his presidency in terms of the Bush years, even though such constant evocation is serving his predecessor more than it is serving Obama himself.
Read the whole piece. VDH calls it "Bush Obsessive Compulsive Disorder", which I don't think quite fits the pathology. I think we are dealing with more of a grandiose narcissism , cool and aloof; and too threatened to recognize anyone else's ideas or existence--as a Tigerhawk post reminds us:
And last, but certainly not least, I've been meaning to link to ShrinkWrapped's excellent series on "The Modern Left: A Marriage of Postmodernism and Narcissism"
Part I begins:
You cannot understand modern politics, especially the role and behavior of the left understanding the basics of Post-Modernism. Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, by Stephen Hicks is a must read which can help clarify such superficially puzzling questions as the conceptual basis for the alliance between radical Islam and the Left.
The Left has an outsized influence in the West via their control of much of the Academy and much of the MSM, which allows them to establish the acceptable bounds of discourse (Political Correctness, Hate Crimes, etc.) Further, the Left's Post-Modern narrative is now the baseline for Europe and threatens to become the accepted framework for discourse in America. Their ideas reside at the core of the Democratic Party and and exert tremendous influence upon our ruling elites in both parties.
Be sure to read Parts II and III.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
LIKE HIS GRANDMOTHER, PERHAPS ?
[Cartoons by Glenn McCoy ]
I don't happen to think Sotomayor is necessarily aracist, but clearly some of her statements (and possibly her jurisprudence) are tinged with the casual kind of racism that is so prevalent on the left.
By virtue of being a member of the left's victimhood groups (two actually), Sotomayor is likely of the opinion that she--BY DEFINITION--is not capable of being a racist. In the weakened minds of the left, disabled as they are by the slow cognitive deterioration that accompanies postmodernism, abstraction and universals are too abstract for them. Like many of the champions of victimhood, she reserves the word to describe those who happen to disagree with her so that she can feel superior to them.
If you want to understand how that leftist tactic has penetrated deeply into the culture, let me tell you a personal story. Recently, I was involved in an animated discussion with my daughter about her schoolwork. Things got a little heated, and in typical teenage fashion she became flustered when I pointed out some facts about her study habits that she did not like.
"Yeah?" she yelled, "Well you're a....racist!"
Somewhat taken aback at the insertion of this word into our conversation, I must have momentarily appeared deeply shocked, because she abruptly started laughing and the tension was broken. Which, of course, made me laugh too at the ridiculousness of her words.
Still laughing, she said that she had learned at school that the best way to end a discussion you did not like was to accuse the other person of being a 'racist', 'sexist' or 'homophobe.' "Calling someone one of those names is a sure way to end the discussion," she explained with a smile. "Kids at school use it all the time."
I saw her point. Being called a racist is enough to give anyone with a modicum of sensitivity pause; coming from my daughter and in the context of our argument temporarily left me speechless; and it had the effect of actually terminating the discussion I was trying to have with her about her poor study habits. How sad that this kind of ad hominem attack has been picked up by young people; but clearly even they recognize its usefulness as a rhetorical attack in an argument they know they cannot win.
Quoting Stephen Hicks:
...[P]ostmodernists need not believe much of what they say. The word games and mmuch of the use of anger and rage that are characteristic of much of their style can be a matter--not of using words to state things that they think are true--but rather of using words as weapons against an enemy that they still hope to destroy.
Hicks goes on later to say:
In adopting this rhetorical strategy, do you really have to believe that everything is a matter of opinion or merely semantics? No, you do not. You can believe absolutely that you are right about the politics; and you can know that all you want to di is to use words to get the guy off your back in a way that makes it seem like you have not lost the argument.
On some level, my daughter understood the absurdity of what she had uttered, but she also understood the effectiveness of calling someone a racist--or a sexist or a homophobe--and knew that it was a conversational show-stopper. End of argument.
Because of this postmodern rhetorical reality, terms like this (and many other words) have truly lost their real meaning. Instead of describing people (like Sotomayor, for example) who base their judgments of other's on the color of their skin or ethnic background, rather than the content of their character, 'racist' is a term that is constantly used by the left to label opponents to their 'progressive' policies.
Oppose some new leftist entitlement (or try to cut back on the old ones that only continually perpetuate themselves and don't really help people in the long-term) and watch the accusations of oppression be hurled at you. You will be told that you 'hate' the poor; the old; Blacks; gays, hispanics etc. etc. etc.
I am no stranger to such accusations. I happen to think (and have evidence in the real world to document my thoughts) that the free market has pulled, and will continue to pull, the poor out of poverty and misery; and that impeding market forces through government action will, in the long run, hurt the poor most of all. Because I defend that idea, I am routinely labeled as someone who "hates" the poor and often as a 'latent' racist.
I think that Sotomayor's comment is racist, but because she's part of a protected victimhood group and is therefore given carte blanche to express her own racist beliefs. No matter, since I am the one who must be racist. End of discussion.
The truth is that for all the lip service the Left pays to "fighting poverty" and "achieving social justice"--which makes them feel just oh so good about themselves--that not one single government program they have supported in the endless bureaucratic quagmire they refer to as the "war on poverty" has done more than those evil corporate bastards at WalMart to actually help the poor or anyone who suffers from the left's favorite disease: oppression.
Instead, the programs they support nationally and internationally inevitably reinforce their own latent envy, racism, and sociopathic selflessness.
So, many times in politics, programs that originate with the "best of intentions"--to help the poor; to achieve equality; to end some perceived injustice-- end up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. This is the ultimate irony of a belief in egalatarianism, which holds that all outcomes must be the same for there to be "social justice". In the old Soviet Union and in Cuba we have a perfect example of the success of the egalatarian model. Everyone is equally poor and miserable. The 'poor' in America have a degree of wealth and opportunity that is unrivaled anywhere else in the world where they embrace egalatarianism.
Yet, the political left is so ideologically committed to the utopian ideal of egalitarianism which, in the real world simply makes everyone equally poor and miserable (except for the lucky elites who control the social system) that they reflexly keep pouring money into programs that can be shown to actively harm the people they are meant to help; and reinforce the stereotypes they are meant to end. That's why the left, who are in complete denial about their own racism, sexism and homophobia end up doing so much to hurt the people they claim to champion. Instead of having a color-blind society, they will create a society where the sanctioned color, race, ethnicity or lifestyle always trump ability, performance, and character.
That's how a supposedly "post-racial" candidate Obama, who promised to end racial stereotypes has now become one of the biggest proponents of them.
(cartoon h/t: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred)
Victor Davis Hanson writes in a post titled "When Words Don't Mean Anything":
Rather than an attempt to defend empirically Sotomayor's suggestion that Latinas are superior, in the judicial sense, to white men, we have been given a variety of postmodern contexts, constructing what she "really" meant: She was merely talking about the advantages of poverty that she thinks she has experienced that are not true of white men; she was only "joking"; she was making an intricate case for diversity, etc. — any explanation other than the natural one that was elaborated on later in her diatribe, namely that she believes the color and gender of a person impart wisdom or less than wisdom.
With the advent of Obamaworld, the centrist veneer sometimes rubs off the race/class/gender/religion talk and we see the fundamentalism in its essence — in the impromptu moments of the campaign it was Michelle's "mean country" and first-time pride in the U.S., Obama's "typical white person," Pennsylvania clingers, and original contorted defense of Reverend Wright, then there was Eric Holder's "cowards"
outburst, and now Sotomayor's Latina tribalism.
In each case, once the race/class/gender animosity is revealed, there is a brief hesititation to see how well the media will come to the rescue and "contextualize" the remark, and when that fails there is the obligatory qualifier "maybe not the best way of putting it," "wrong word," "if I had to say it over, I'd . . ." The point being that, in the D.C. gotcha culture, these are never gotchas due to the race, gender, or class of the perpetrator (sort of like the schizophrenic attitude toward plagiarism that exempts a Maureen Dowd, or Joe Biden, or intolerance of supernatural religion that ignores an Arianna Huffington's John-Roger or Hillary séances with Eleanor Roosevelt).
I think the unifying explanation is that such wonderful people either simply are incapable of racialist remarks, or that the good that they otherwise stand for so overshadows the embarrassments as to make them not embarrassments at all.
I'm afraid I fail to see the overwhelming 'good' that Sotomayer has done that should overshadow justified criticism of her flawed--and apparently racially motivated-- judicial thinking. I, perhaps like Obama's 'typical white person' grandmother (except I am of Italian descent), hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
After that--no matter whether they are black, white, brown, or green-- they are on their own.
Monday, June 01, 2009
INNOCENCE
A mother turtledove took up residence in a wreath I have on my front porch a few weeks ago, and today I snapped a shot of her two babies while she was digging for worms in my rose garden.
WICKEDNESS
This post, "Gravely Wicked", by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, sums up my own horrified reaction to the murder of Dr. George Tiller:
Professor George is absolutely correct when he says that we ae a nation of laws. Without the rule of law; without justice being blind to all considerations except for the nature of the act committed against another human being, then anyone can find justification for exactly this sort of terrorism and lawlessness; and I'm sure that they may even find some empathy for the motives that drove them to commit such grave wickedness--and even explicit support from some, not dissimilar from what CAIR does for their favorite terrorist murderers.
But they should never find it in the law, or in those who administer the law; because the actions of the perpetrator were evil, pure and simple.
Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.
Professor George is absolutely correct when he says that we ae a nation of laws. Without the rule of law; without justice being blind to all considerations except for the nature of the act committed against another human being, then anyone can find justification for exactly this sort of terrorism and lawlessness; and I'm sure that they may even find some empathy for the motives that drove them to commit such grave wickedness--and even explicit support from some, not dissimilar from what CAIR does for their favorite terrorist murderers.
But they should never find it in the law, or in those who administer the law; because the actions of the perpetrator were evil, pure and simple.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
THE ORWELLIAN LEFT'S RAINBOW HYPOCRISY
Victor Davis Hanson on the Sotomayor nomination:
Precisely the point that I made the other day. The Sotomayor nomination is just one more example of the the left's "rainbow hypocrisy."
If you have respect for a person or a cause, it seems obvious that you wouldn't consider those people or that cause to be something to smear someone else with. So, it is always illuminating to discover what the "champions of the oppressed" REALLY think about the handicapped, women, blacks, gays and other minority groups they supposedly champion (i.e., by helping them remain victims for life).
Here are a few examples that exemplify the "compassionate" bigotry of the left and how that bigotry expresses itself when it is politically expedient to do so; i.e., when they want to smear someone with whom they disagree, particularly members of those groups who are not suitably deferential to them.
This is the cover of a flyer distributed by Tennessee Democrats in the 2004 election that shows how they are willing to exploit the handicapped for political gain:
President Obama has also had a "Special Olympics" moment.
Next are two rather thuggish attempts to demean Condi Rice, an amazing woman who is considered by the left to be a "race traitor" simply because she is an independent thinker who doesn't require their victimhood pimping to be successful; and, of course, because she dares to be a Republican.
We all know what the Left and Democrats think of Blacks and other minorities who don't agree with their ideology: they are not REAL Black people; or REAL gays; or REAL Hispanics.
First, an incredibly racist cartoon by Jeff Danziger:
Then there's this one by Pat Oliphant:
Nice racial stereotyping, huh? I use these cartoons because pictures are often "worth a thousand words," and believe me, much more than a thousand words were used to denigrate and racially stereotype Rice throughout her tenure in the Bush Administration.
She, along with other Republicans and conservatives who happen to be members of the left's identified "victim groups" are considered fair game for the left, who become absolutely vicious toward any of the member of those groups as soon as it is realized they are insufficiently deferential toward the left's ideology.
It's really cute how Obama has framed the debate about identity politics.
First, during the election it became clear (and the MSM helped him in this process) that if The One didn't win the election, then it would be definitive proof of the latent racism of America. Would could only be redeemed by doing the right and proper thing--i.e., vote for him.
This is the kind of casual racism and sexism that has become the modern foundation of the Democratic Party. By manipulating Blacks, women, the Gays, and [insert your favorite victim group here] they have fashioned for themselves a 'rainbow coalition'--or to put it another way, a' politically correct' path to power that actually actively promotes racism, sexism--and any other prejudice they can think of--all in the name of eliminating or opposing racism, sexism and prejudice. Wow! Again, you have to marvel at the power of the unconscious. Their rhetoric says one thing, but their policies end up doing the opposite.
In other words, they bring about and make worse the very thing they claim to be opposed to; but at least in the process they temporarily enhance their faux self-esteem and reinforce their sense of superiority and virtuousness.
You begin to get an inkling of what the left REALLY thinks of their rainbow base of support and "diversity"--particularly when they don't toe the party line. Wouldn't you imagine that if the left really meant what they say about "diversity" that they might have celebrated a talented Black woman who was appointed to one of the highest political offices in the land? Does Condi Rice deserve to be ridiculed for her achievements because she is Black AND a Republican? What about if she had been Black and Democrat?? Would she then be shown some "respect"? Would Clarence Thomas have been shown that respect? How about Miguel Estrada? Or Alberto Gonzales?
But, as Hanson says above, the minions of the left considers itself de facto... beyond racial reproach, and therefore can engage in a sort of viciousness that exceeds even that shown non-minority conservatives. By thier own standards, they routinely fail the test of compassion and humanity. Their rainbow coalition is nothing but a rainbow of hypocrisy and self-serving rhetoric.
The rhetoric surrounding the Sotomayor nomination is just one more hypocrisy. Kimberly Strassel captures the duplicity and the cognitive dissonance (not to mention the emotionalism) of the left, as personified by it's most messianic represenatative:
Read it all to discover Obama's new ground rules that take identity politics (and its latent bigotry) to even higher levels of Orwellian absurdity and political correctness.
As Rosslyn Smith at American Thinker says, "And to think some people actually thought that by voting for Obama this nation would be put identity politics behind us."
HAH! On the contrary, the election of Obama has made identity politics--and the left's rainbow hypocrisy-- front and center in American life.
Conservatives are flummoxed about the Sotomayor news, and have been warned by the likes of Chris Matthews and David Gergen that the nomination is a shoo-in, regardless of Justice Sotomayor’s statements about the less desirable characteristics of white males as judges, and the desire to enact policy from the appellate bench.
I think we are in an Orwellian time, and it is not just explainable by identifypolitics. Remember the grilling of Alberto Gonzales and the hysteria over Miguel Estrada. So the point is not just having a so-called minority profile, but having one compatible to the ‘progressive’ left. If an African-American nominee (cf. Justice Thomas) or Hispanic proves to be conservative, then race can often count against them, inciting a sort of furor on the left that such independent thinking individuals are not suitably deferential to liberals for their trail-blazing work.
Or perhaps the liberal mind feels that de facto it is beyond racial reproach, and therefore can engage in a sort of viciousness that exceeds even that shown non-minority conservatives. In short, the inspirational story of a Hispanic is relevant only to the degree that the nominee favors an agenda of the elite progressive left-without that requisite ideology, the candidate is reduced to an ingrate or a victim of false-consciousness, or a traitor of sorts. (Emphasis mine)
Precisely the point that I made the other day. The Sotomayor nomination is just one more example of the the left's "rainbow hypocrisy."
If you have respect for a person or a cause, it seems obvious that you wouldn't consider those people or that cause to be something to smear someone else with. So, it is always illuminating to discover what the "champions of the oppressed" REALLY think about the handicapped, women, blacks, gays and other minority groups they supposedly champion (i.e., by helping them remain victims for life).
Here are a few examples that exemplify the "compassionate" bigotry of the left and how that bigotry expresses itself when it is politically expedient to do so; i.e., when they want to smear someone with whom they disagree, particularly members of those groups who are not suitably deferential to them.
This is the cover of a flyer distributed by Tennessee Democrats in the 2004 election that shows how they are willing to exploit the handicapped for political gain:
President Obama has also had a "Special Olympics" moment.
Next are two rather thuggish attempts to demean Condi Rice, an amazing woman who is considered by the left to be a "race traitor" simply because she is an independent thinker who doesn't require their victimhood pimping to be successful; and, of course, because she dares to be a Republican.
We all know what the Left and Democrats think of Blacks and other minorities who don't agree with their ideology: they are not REAL Black people; or REAL gays; or REAL Hispanics.
First, an incredibly racist cartoon by Jeff Danziger:
Then there's this one by Pat Oliphant:
Nice racial stereotyping, huh? I use these cartoons because pictures are often "worth a thousand words," and believe me, much more than a thousand words were used to denigrate and racially stereotype Rice throughout her tenure in the Bush Administration.
She, along with other Republicans and conservatives who happen to be members of the left's identified "victim groups" are considered fair game for the left, who become absolutely vicious toward any of the member of those groups as soon as it is realized they are insufficiently deferential toward the left's ideology.
It's really cute how Obama has framed the debate about identity politics.
First, during the election it became clear (and the MSM helped him in this process) that if The One didn't win the election, then it would be definitive proof of the latent racism of America. Would could only be redeemed by doing the right and proper thing--i.e., vote for him.
This is the kind of casual racism and sexism that has become the modern foundation of the Democratic Party. By manipulating Blacks, women, the Gays, and [insert your favorite victim group here] they have fashioned for themselves a 'rainbow coalition'--or to put it another way, a' politically correct' path to power that actually actively promotes racism, sexism--and any other prejudice they can think of--all in the name of eliminating or opposing racism, sexism and prejudice. Wow! Again, you have to marvel at the power of the unconscious. Their rhetoric says one thing, but their policies end up doing the opposite.
In other words, they bring about and make worse the very thing they claim to be opposed to; but at least in the process they temporarily enhance their faux self-esteem and reinforce their sense of superiority and virtuousness.
You begin to get an inkling of what the left REALLY thinks of their rainbow base of support and "diversity"--particularly when they don't toe the party line. Wouldn't you imagine that if the left really meant what they say about "diversity" that they might have celebrated a talented Black woman who was appointed to one of the highest political offices in the land? Does Condi Rice deserve to be ridiculed for her achievements because she is Black AND a Republican? What about if she had been Black and Democrat?? Would she then be shown some "respect"? Would Clarence Thomas have been shown that respect? How about Miguel Estrada? Or Alberto Gonzales?
But, as Hanson says above, the minions of the left considers itself de facto... beyond racial reproach, and therefore can engage in a sort of viciousness that exceeds even that shown non-minority conservatives. By thier own standards, they routinely fail the test of compassion and humanity. Their rainbow coalition is nothing but a rainbow of hypocrisy and self-serving rhetoric.
The rhetoric surrounding the Sotomayor nomination is just one more hypocrisy. Kimberly Strassel captures the duplicity and the cognitive dissonance (not to mention the emotionalism) of the left, as personified by it's most messianic represenatative:
The president, after all, had taken great pains to explain that this is more than an American success story. Rather, it is Judge Sotomayor's biography that uniquely qualifies her to sit on the nation's highest bench -- that gives her the "empathy" to rule wisely. Judge Sotomayor agrees: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said in 2001.
If so, perhaps we can expect her to join in opinions with the wise and richly experienced Clarence Thomas. That would be the same Justice Thomas who lost his father, and was raised by his mother in a rural Georgia town, in a shack without running water, until he was sent to his grandfather. The same Justice Thomas who had to work every day after school, though he was not allowed to study at the Savannah Public Library because he was black. The same Justice Thomas who became the first in his family to go to college and receive a law degree from Yale.
By the president's measure, the nation couldn't find a more empathetic referee than Justice Thomas. And yet here's what Mr. Obama had to say last year when Pastor Rick Warren asked him about the Supreme Court: "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation."
In other words, nine months ago Mr. Obama thought that the primary qualification for the High Court was the soundness of a nominee's legal thinking, or at least that's what Democrats have always stressed when working against a conservative judge. Throughout the Bush years, it was standard Democratic senatorial practice to comb through every last opinion, memo, job application and college term paper, all with an aim of creating a nominee "too extreme" or "unqualified" to sit on the federal bench.
Mr. Obama knows this, as he took part in it, joining a Senate minority who voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. Mr. Obama also understands a discussion of Judge Sotomayor's legal thinking means a discussion about "judicial activism" -- a political loser. In a day when voters routinely rise up to rebuke their activist courts on issues ranging from gay marriage to property rights, few red-state Democrats want to go there. Moreover, a number of Judge Sotomayor's specific legal opinions -- whether on racial preferences, or gun restrictions -- put her to the left of most Americans.
Which brings us to Ground Rule No. 2, which is that Republicans are not allowed to criticize Judge Sotomayor, for the reason that she is the first Hispanic nominee to the High Court.
Read it all to discover Obama's new ground rules that take identity politics (and its latent bigotry) to even higher levels of Orwellian absurdity and political correctness.
As Rosslyn Smith at American Thinker says, "And to think some people actually thought that by voting for Obama this nation would be put identity politics behind us."
HAH! On the contrary, the election of Obama has made identity politics--and the left's rainbow hypocrisy-- front and center in American life.
Friday, May 29, 2009
THE SUICIDAL IMPULSES OF THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE
North Korea is not an imminent threat, but clearly, global warming is--so much so that, "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility."
Has it ever occurred to malignant and thuggish do-gooders like Nancy Pelosi, I wonder, that she and the other idiots in Congress were elected to take responsibility for dealing with lunatic regimes like North Korea and Iran--and NOT for regulating every aspect of the lives of those who elected her?
WHY WHY WHY are we electing people like this?? It's suicidal in more ways than one....
UPDATE: Suicidal passivity? Or, is Obama the opiate of the masses?
[Cartoons by Brian Farrington]
Has it ever occurred to malignant and thuggish do-gooders like Nancy Pelosi, I wonder, that she and the other idiots in Congress were elected to take responsibility for dealing with lunatic regimes like North Korea and Iran--and NOT for regulating every aspect of the lives of those who elected her?
WHY WHY WHY are we electing people like this?? It's suicidal in more ways than one....
UPDATE: Suicidal passivity? Or, is Obama the opiate of the masses?
[Cartoons by Brian Farrington]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
"LEFTISM AIMS LOW AND ALWAYS REACHES ITS TARGET"
Gagdad Bob writes in one of his many excellent posts (this one titled "The Stone Age Economics of the Left: Who Would Jesus Bail Out?):
As they say, read it all.
At any rate, his words got me to thinking about why it is that the left, whose policies as Bob suggests, always end up enabling and exposing the worse aspects of human nature, are the same people who are always coming up with these utopian schemes that promise a veritable paradise of human love, compassion, kindness and brotherhood and deliver a toxic brew of hate, envy, and discord? How can they be so completely clueless about something as obvious as the reality of human nature?
Perhaps, the best answer to that question is that, when it comes to themselves, the left is constitutionally unable to understand or accept the dark side of their own natures with any degree of clarity, let alone honesty.
The squalid utopian fantasies of socialism, communism--or any variant of Marxism for that matter--appeals primarily to people who refuse to acknowledge their own human imperfections, and hence their own capacity for evil. They don't want to admit it, but those who are drawn to the leftist view of the world, tend to see themselves as superior; above all the boring, ordinary human beings around them; more virtuous, more compassionate, smarter; and of course, much better qualified to decide what's best for lesser beings like you and me.
It is extremely ironic, considering the left's rhetoric to the contrary, to realize that it is conservatism and its underlying priniciples that fundamentally embrace the truth about human nature; and understand that nature is closer to the "lazy, frightened,s elfish, superstitious, instinct-loving, lowdown rascal" than to the utopian "ideal man", promoted in the rantings of communists, socialist, or any collectivist or totalitarian (whether from the left or the right side of the political spectrum). And, as a consequence of understanding that reality, conservatism and its economic policies (i.e., capitalism) are able to harness even the most negative aspects of human nature to bring positive good both to the individual and to the larger society as well.
Conservatism and capitalism are both ideas that have worked amazingly well for one reason: they do not pretend that human nature is something it is not. Leftism of any stripe fails miserably and catastrophically because they routinely pretend that human nature can be changed and perfected.
In essence, the left's denial and its psychological attraction to all these dysfunctional utopian systems inevitably leads to envy and a host of other negative and sadistic human traits; and, along the way, it promotes a cult of victimhood and identity politics with all the associated social and political conflicts those emotions generate. Envy, in particular, is the lovely human emotion that drives all these leftist systems; and it exists in pure, unadulterated and vicious form in those systems.
And, as I noted in the post linked earlier,
After the leftist disasters of the 20th century; after the devastating consequences of forcing people to live in a variety of these "utopian paradises", it is simply amazing that today's left continues to deny the reality of human nature. Yet they do, and that is why they keep coming back to the same old tired ideas and policies and formulas that have repeatedly failed in the real world and which have always--ALWAYS--ended up unleashing all the evil of which human nature is capable.
Ahhh. The power of the unconscious!
On the other hand, the values that have brought enduring light and progress to humanity--Life, Liberty, and the freedom to pursue one's own individual happiness--are not utopian in nature. Far from it. These values, enshrined in the American singularity represent the values that are able to transform flawed, ordinary human beings into luminous souls; because by pursuing their own happiness in a free society under the rule of law, individuals are able to achieve incredible heights.
Leftists "aim low" because they base their policies on ridiculous fantasies about their own nature, i.e., they imagine they are "better" people than the rest of us. In other words, they allow their unconscious self--in which the dark side of human nature is at home--to take control of their actions. Rarely do they ever examine their own motives or the dramatic inconsistencies between what they say and what they do. They "always reach their target" because they demonstrate repeatedly how truly despicable human nature can be when the dark side of one's self is denied and hidden behind a veil of arrogant, narcissistic superiority. These do-gooders always end up doing bad, but console themselves by saying, "We meant well." All their so-called "progressive" policies have the same superficial quality: it first and foremost makes the leftist feel good about himself and reinforces their psychological denial about human nature (specifically, their own).
Conservatives, with the tacit acceptance of human foibles and human evil manage, with their better ideas, to "aim high" and allow human nature--with all its attendant good and bad qualities--to reach for the stars. Sometimes we fail (we are human, after all), but when we succeed, the whole of humanity moves forward.
Which is why conservatives are the true--and only-- progressives.
But one of the things that never changes is the hysteria of the left. The hysteria results from the conflation of existential and economic realities. In other words, when it comes to existence, there is always something to bitch about. But if you shift this to the plane of economics, then you can imagine that otherwise insoluble existential problems are susceptible to solutions.
For example, you can give "free college" to everyone, but this won't alter the fact that 50% of human beings are of below average intelligence. In fact, you'll only end up diluting education, so that if someone wants to be educated, they will have to do so outside of college. With the exception of the hard sciences, we're pretty much at that point now. Once college is universal, it becomes worthless. And if Obama has his way, the same thing will occur in medicine: everyone will be entitled to their government-rationed portion of mediocre healthcare.
Now, when Marx was writing his critique of industrial capitalism in the mid 19th century, living standards were finally rising after hundreds, and even thousands, of years of stagnation. Workers were just finally rising above subsistence levels and beginning to be able to purchase necessities and eventually luxuries that would have been completely unavailable to them in the past. Pockets of Slack were starting to break out everywhere, instead of just being available to the upper-upper classes.
In short, the means of creating unlimited wealth weren't really stumbled upon by human beings until the rise of industrial capitalism. Human beings had finally discovered the key to economic growth, which came down to the magical combination of individual liberty, free markets, strong private property rights, sound money, and the rule of law. And then get the hell out of the way.
And even then, it took several hundred more years to tame the "boom or bust" cycle [oops!], to the point that people no longer expect economic recessions, much less, depressions. It is now as if people imagine that unlimited economic growth and prosperity are the norm instead of an extraordinary deviation from the past. And with that, a sense of entitlement is nurtured, which in turn is rooted in what the psychoanalyst Melanie Klein called constitutional envy....
In other words, communism is our default state (as seen in our immediate families), whereas certain traits and habits of mind associated with capitalism must be learned, among them, trust of the stranger, the tamping down of envy, a focus on the future instead of the present, and an understanding that economic exchange isn't a zero-sum game....
For the vast majority of human beings, liberty is not a particularly important value, much less the most important one. They would just as soon barter it away for security, as they have done in western Europe.
Once you understand this, then much about the left begins to make sense. In Europe, we can see how the welfare state puts in place a system of incentives that creates a new kind of enfeebled man, but that's not exactly correct. In reality, it simply reveals man for what he is -- a lazy, frightened, selfish, superstitious, instinct-loving and lowdown rascal. Leftism aims low and always reaches its target.
As they say, read it all.
At any rate, his words got me to thinking about why it is that the left, whose policies as Bob suggests, always end up enabling and exposing the worse aspects of human nature, are the same people who are always coming up with these utopian schemes that promise a veritable paradise of human love, compassion, kindness and brotherhood and deliver a toxic brew of hate, envy, and discord? How can they be so completely clueless about something as obvious as the reality of human nature?
Perhaps, the best answer to that question is that, when it comes to themselves, the left is constitutionally unable to understand or accept the dark side of their own natures with any degree of clarity, let alone honesty.
The squalid utopian fantasies of socialism, communism--or any variant of Marxism for that matter--appeals primarily to people who refuse to acknowledge their own human imperfections, and hence their own capacity for evil. They don't want to admit it, but those who are drawn to the leftist view of the world, tend to see themselves as superior; above all the boring, ordinary human beings around them; more virtuous, more compassionate, smarter; and of course, much better qualified to decide what's best for lesser beings like you and me.
It is extremely ironic, considering the left's rhetoric to the contrary, to realize that it is conservatism and its underlying priniciples that fundamentally embrace the truth about human nature; and understand that nature is closer to the "lazy, frightened,s elfish, superstitious, instinct-loving, lowdown rascal" than to the utopian "ideal man", promoted in the rantings of communists, socialist, or any collectivist or totalitarian (whether from the left or the right side of the political spectrum). And, as a consequence of understanding that reality, conservatism and its economic policies (i.e., capitalism) are able to harness even the most negative aspects of human nature to bring positive good both to the individual and to the larger society as well.
Conservatism and capitalism are both ideas that have worked amazingly well for one reason: they do not pretend that human nature is something it is not. Leftism of any stripe fails miserably and catastrophically because they routinely pretend that human nature can be changed and perfected.
In essence, the left's denial and its psychological attraction to all these dysfunctional utopian systems inevitably leads to envy and a host of other negative and sadistic human traits; and, along the way, it promotes a cult of victimhood and identity politics with all the associated social and political conflicts those emotions generate. Envy, in particular, is the lovely human emotion that drives all these leftist systems; and it exists in pure, unadulterated and vicious form in those systems.
And, as I noted in the post linked earlier,
...in answer to the unspoken question, yes; capitalism also thrives on envy--and even greed.
But, capitalism within a democratic and politically free system of government offers a healthy channel for the redirection of negative emotions like envy and greed into something positive for both the individual and the larger society.
Something, I might add, that Marxism, socialism and all its malignant variants completely fail to do. You cannot escape the reality of this dark side of human nature. You can either channel that dark side and use it constructively to benefit the individual and incidentally the society he lives in; or you can encourage and facilitate it in all its destructive power, and by doing so create the hell on earth we've come to associate with communist and Marxist societies.
After the leftist disasters of the 20th century; after the devastating consequences of forcing people to live in a variety of these "utopian paradises", it is simply amazing that today's left continues to deny the reality of human nature. Yet they do, and that is why they keep coming back to the same old tired ideas and policies and formulas that have repeatedly failed in the real world and which have always--ALWAYS--ended up unleashing all the evil of which human nature is capable.
Ahhh. The power of the unconscious!
On the other hand, the values that have brought enduring light and progress to humanity--Life, Liberty, and the freedom to pursue one's own individual happiness--are not utopian in nature. Far from it. These values, enshrined in the American singularity represent the values that are able to transform flawed, ordinary human beings into luminous souls; because by pursuing their own happiness in a free society under the rule of law, individuals are able to achieve incredible heights.
Leftists "aim low" because they base their policies on ridiculous fantasies about their own nature, i.e., they imagine they are "better" people than the rest of us. In other words, they allow their unconscious self--in which the dark side of human nature is at home--to take control of their actions. Rarely do they ever examine their own motives or the dramatic inconsistencies between what they say and what they do. They "always reach their target" because they demonstrate repeatedly how truly despicable human nature can be when the dark side of one's self is denied and hidden behind a veil of arrogant, narcissistic superiority. These do-gooders always end up doing bad, but console themselves by saying, "We meant well." All their so-called "progressive" policies have the same superficial quality: it first and foremost makes the leftist feel good about himself and reinforces their psychological denial about human nature (specifically, their own).
Conservatives, with the tacit acceptance of human foibles and human evil manage, with their better ideas, to "aim high" and allow human nature--with all its attendant good and bad qualities--to reach for the stars. Sometimes we fail (we are human, after all), but when we succeed, the whole of humanity moves forward.
Which is why conservatives are the true--and only-- progressives.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
ANTICIPATION AND PREVENTION vs DENIAL AND DISASTER
The LA Times had a story a few days ago that basically attacked Dick Cheney for saying that the Bush Administration actions saved lives. In "Cheney's assertions of lives saved is hard to prove", Greg Miller writes:
One particularly interesting tidbit, if you read the entire thing you will discover this gem as the last sentence:
Interesting, isn't it, that Cheney is demanding that intelligence be released, but Obama doesn't want it to be? That alone should tell you something important about this "feud". The events reported yesterday about North Korea testing a nuclear device on par with the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima, should also tell you something important.
Michael Rubin notes:
I would like to look at this issue from a psychological perspective.
Gerard Baker once wrote in an article that proposed an alternate history of Iraq ; one where Saddam Hussein was permitted to stay in power by the international community. He makes this important point at the end of the article:
The consequences of what might have been are indeed unrecordable. The thing about prevention is that...it prevents really bad things from happening. By the very act of preventing a bad thing from happening, you can never then prove that it might have occurred in the first place.
Critics can then claim that the countermeasure or preventive action was not really necessary to begin with (as we see Obama and the left doing about enhanced interrogation and waterboarding.
If you are successful, the event you fear will not happen. So, were you wrong to try to prevent it?
Likewise, because the terror plots the Bush Administration interrupted and their consequences were successfully prevented from happening, many people now --especially those that hate Bush and Cheney to begin with--will argue that nothing of significance occurred and will attempt to blow it all off. We see the scorn being heaped on the "dimwits" in NYC, for example, who were stopped from bombing a synagogue and a military base, though their intent was clear. You see the same scorn and derision every time some dimwit terrorist is caught and prevented from doing what he planned.
Gee, if only those "unsophisticated dimwits and bumbling holy warriors" from 9/11 had been infiltrated by the hapless FBI....
This kind of thing, which is the hallmark of foolish and clueless sites like the one linked above, is worse than foolish thinking. This is stupid and dangerous thinking. It is psychological denial taken to the nth degree.
If you take any murderous plot by the most dimwitted and bumbling of holy warriors--motivated by their sincere desire to kill us and all we stand for-- to their logical conclusion, they would have resulted in serious death and mayhem. By the logic of the critics of prevention, since nothing happened, there is no evidence you were successful. Or, since the perps have IQ's below most farm animals, their intent means nothing at all. Please tell all this to the innocent grade school children, or the mentally handicapped people Al Qaeda and other groups routinely recruit to be suicide bombers.
The sarcastic "critics of prevention", by the way, always morph into the pontificating "critics in hindsight" that blast away without mercy when there is a "failure of imagination"; or for "not connecting the dots"; or because "not enough planning in advance" when something terrible occurs.
Thus you have the infallible logic of the critc of prevention, and the ready-made fall guy in whoever is courageous enough to put his money where his mouth is to try to prevent something terrible from happening.
The infallible logic is this: since the terrible event was prevented from occurring, what possible evidence exists that it would have taken place? Hence you can only "prove" that prevention would have worked if you don't use it.
The ready-made fall guy is created by the infallible logic. If the terrible event occurs and was preventable, and you did nothing--YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. If you prevent the terrible thing from occurring, but you cannot prove that it would have occurred if you hadn't prevented it--THEN YOU LIED, PEOPLE DIED FOR NOTHING, ETC ETC.. In short, you will be damned if you do prevent the terrible thing from happening; and damned if you don't.
In the end, it matters what people said and what they did or did not do. Putting events in perspective requires that kind of analysis, and so, articles like Baker's provides a real service to anyone who needs a dispassionate and rational evaluation of current events without resorting to the mass hysteria and selective amnesia that so characterizes the MSM, the Democrats, and the antiwar fanatics.
We come now to why anticipation (a mature psychological defense, and one of the few that is conscious and deliberate) is so superior to denial. The former prevents disasters, while the latter enables them.
Many on the left, including most of the Democratic Party leadership and our current POTUS are in major denial about terrorism (or should I say, "man-made disasters"?). Their spokespeople and pundits routinely claim that "fear of terrorism" was "inflamed and exploited" by the Bush Administration for the purpose of gaining power:
This argument has been repeated many times by many on the left; and most recently by President Obama in a speech at the National Archives. What they are all basically arguing is that, instead of using a healthy and appropriate psychological defense called anticipation against terrorism and the Islamic fanatics within and without our society (who most certainly want to kill us and destroy our society)--we should instead switch to a psychotic one, denial. They insist that the fact that there have been no more 9/11's in the U.S. is pure dumb luck and that they were right to be more fearful of the evil Bush and Cheney than the poor oppressed dimwit holy warriors. Bush and Cheney were "shredding our Constitution", while the jihadists only wanted to kill us. Even now with Bush and Cheney out of office, we continue to hear this argument a lot. Quite a lot, acutally.
Besides the ongoing psychological displacement, there is a strong element of paranoia here too. And a noticeable touch of both projection (ask yourself who is really desperate about getting and keeping power) and hysteria. This exaggerated emotionalism from the left is used to describe normal people justifiably afraid of irrational fanatics not amenable to reason. The implication remains even in the current Administration that Bush and Cheney used these "inappropriate and irrational fears" of terrorism to "justify illegal actions" like torture.
While the US was busy fighting this illusory enemy, Bushitler and Darth Cheney were amassing power and intended to set themselves up as dictators and destroy our freedom. Only the brave and powerful Obamessiah was able to save us from such a horrible fate.
Anticipation is the realistic anticipation of or planning for future discomfort. This defense mechanism includes goal-directed and even overly careful planning or worrying--depending on the situation. Anticipating realistic events such as death or illness or separation and loss; and then consciously utilizing personal insight and self awareness to mitigate the worse effects, if possible is the height of maturity and healthy psychological functioning.
Let me quote George Vaillant (page 71):
Anticipation, and the appropriate and realistic worry that an attack like 9/11--or even worse-- are the psychological factors that are protecting us, even as I write this post. President Bush and his administration by their actions have given the American people 6 years without an attack on the homeland (not that he will get any credit for it; and not that the left will credit the Patriot Act or even the increased surveillance of the NSA; or the actions of the military in Afghanistan or Iraq). To the political left, our safety is all a big mysterious and magical state of being independent of any actions to ensure it.
Or, as the left and its current leaders prefer to imagine: we have been safe because of "fear-mongering" and that the threat/risk is overblown.
Of course it is. Until another 9/11 happens. Or until something worse occurs. Then they will be all over Bush and Company for lying to us about the threat and screaming, "WHY DIDN'T YOU PROTECT US?" like the little children they are. Here is more from the Greenwald article:
Excuse me? What does this moron think the U.S. has been doing since 9/11? The courage, calm and resolve of both President Bush and our stalwart military forces has been nothing short of inspiring. I ask you to consider who it has been since 9/11 who "lack resolve". Who has been whining and sniping and insisting that "the war is lost" and that we should just give up and go home? Who is now saying that it's a fait accompli that Iran get nuclear weapons? Who is hysterical with rage at the very idea that Israel might do something to prevent that scenario from happening?
The left talks about "hysteria and fear-mongering" all the time. But, what is it except hysteria and fear-mongering that motivated people to believe that Bush and Cheney's goal was not to protect America, but to destroy it? What was it except hysteria that only focused on the daily death counts from Iraq, and not on the context of what our soldiers are dying for? What was it except hysteria that even today maintains that the death of 3000 innocent Americans at the hands of religious fanatics in ONE DAY is nothing to be concerned about; but the death of as many professional soldiers in eight YEARS is enough to cut and run? What is it but hysteria that negatively emphasizes the waterboarding of three (THREE!) high value terrorists in a desperate attempt to keep America safe from another attack?
There is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that the previous Administration did what it did in order to accumulate power. Quite the opposite, in fact. Bush persevered despite overwhelming opposition and negativ polls. Not only that, but there was a peaceful transition of power from Bush to Obama; a graciousness and a deliberate attempt to pass the torch in as civil a manner as possible. Compare that civility with the continuous incivility of Obama and his henchmen who cannot seem to utter a sentence without denouncing the former President and his people.
I would also like to point out to the denialists, that the strong are rational and appropriately afraid. Because if they are not afraid, they will die. If they do not take steps to protect themselves, they will die. If they ignore for too long the threats amassing to kill them, even the strong will die.
I am not arguing that there should be a carte blanche given to the executive branch of government. But even the Founding Fathers understood that during a war is no time to be arguing like children about who gets to do what. The Constitution allows the president to assume powers and responsibilities that he otherwise would not even want. It is truly hysteria and fear-mongering that motivates the left and the Democrats now.
I know peole who trembled in their beds at night in Ann Arbor, waiting for the Bush Gestapo to come and take them away. Underneath all the posturing about civil rights and such, paranoid people are actually very fearful people who are desperately avoiding dealing with their fear; that's why they are in denial of reality.
Those of us who prefer to be proactive and anticipate for future attacks are the ones who are dealing directly--and appropriately-- with our fears. We prefer anticipation and prevention over denial and disaster.
Reporting from Washington -- In the bitter debate over the nation's counter-terrorism policies, former Vice President Dick Cheney has introduced an assertion that substantially raises the stakes.
Twice in the last two weeks -- including during his speaking duel with President Obama on Thursday -- Cheney has said that the Bush administration's approach may have saved "hundreds of thousands" of lives....
But terrorism experts said that though it is possible to envision scenarios that involve casualties of that magnitude, no evidence has emerged about the plots disrupted during the Bush administration to suggest that Cheney's claim is true.
"It's an easy thing to say and a difficult thing to prove," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "I think it's another broadside in this ongoing feud."
One particularly interesting tidbit, if you read the entire thing you will discover this gem as the last sentence:
Obama has also made assertions in the counter-terrorism debate that are difficult to assess. In making the case Thursday for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, he said that the island prison had "likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained."
But "nobody knows that for a fact," Schmitt said. "That is the reason why this is such a hard debate in some ways -- because until one actually sees the intelligence they're sitting on, it's virtually impossible to make a judgment that what either Obama or Cheney is saying is spot on."
Interesting, isn't it, that Cheney is demanding that intelligence be released, but Obama doesn't want it to be? That alone should tell you something important about this "feud". The events reported yesterday about North Korea testing a nuclear device on par with the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima, should also tell you something important.
Michael Rubin notes:
Reports suggest that North Korea today tested a nuclear device on par with the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima. The test is an indictment of more than 15 years of misguided diplomacy. Rather than win diplomatic pause, we and our allies in KEDO have given North Korea billions of dollars in aid and subsidies while they pursued this milestone unmolested an unabated..
It is doubtful that Pyongyang was ever sincere in its engagement. While some Clinton hands blame the Bush administration for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework, the more honest diplomats acknowledge that the evidence of North Korean cheating had simply grown too great to bear. The best argument those defending the process could come up with was that North Korea had violated only the Joint Declaration of North and South Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a rather silly argument given the incorporation of the Joint Declaration into the Agreed Framework and the larger point that North Korea simply did not abide by agreements.
The question now comes whether we will learn from the failures of both engagement and multilateralism. The links between Pyongyang and Tehran are strong. The arguments made now with regard to Tehran parallel those made 15 years ago with North Korea. The timeline won't be the same, however, since North Korea has shown willingness to proliferate, selling technology to the highest bidder. Obama faces a real test with regard to Iran. Desperation to engage and willingness to admit guilt for imagined sins while seeing innocence in an adversary is not a strategy
I would like to look at this issue from a psychological perspective.
Gerard Baker once wrote in an article that proposed an alternate history of Iraq ; one where Saddam Hussein was permitted to stay in power by the international community. He makes this important point at the end of the article:
[T]hat judgment should encompass not just the consequences of what was done but the consequences of what might have happened had it not been done. The consequences of what was done in Iraq are easy to see and hard to look at. The consequences of what might have been are by their nature unrecordable. But we know that history’s greatest tragedies could and should have been avoided, but never were.
The consequences of what might have been are indeed unrecordable. The thing about prevention is that...it prevents really bad things from happening. By the very act of preventing a bad thing from happening, you can never then prove that it might have occurred in the first place.
Critics can then claim that the countermeasure or preventive action was not really necessary to begin with (as we see Obama and the left doing about enhanced interrogation and waterboarding.
If you are successful, the event you fear will not happen. So, were you wrong to try to prevent it?
Likewise, because the terror plots the Bush Administration interrupted and their consequences were successfully prevented from happening, many people now --especially those that hate Bush and Cheney to begin with--will argue that nothing of significance occurred and will attempt to blow it all off. We see the scorn being heaped on the "dimwits" in NYC, for example, who were stopped from bombing a synagogue and a military base, though their intent was clear. You see the same scorn and derision every time some dimwit terrorist is caught and prevented from doing what he planned.
Gee, if only those "unsophisticated dimwits and bumbling holy warriors" from 9/11 had been infiltrated by the hapless FBI....
This kind of thing, which is the hallmark of foolish and clueless sites like the one linked above, is worse than foolish thinking. This is stupid and dangerous thinking. It is psychological denial taken to the nth degree.
If you take any murderous plot by the most dimwitted and bumbling of holy warriors--motivated by their sincere desire to kill us and all we stand for-- to their logical conclusion, they would have resulted in serious death and mayhem. By the logic of the critics of prevention, since nothing happened, there is no evidence you were successful. Or, since the perps have IQ's below most farm animals, their intent means nothing at all. Please tell all this to the innocent grade school children, or the mentally handicapped people Al Qaeda and other groups routinely recruit to be suicide bombers.
The sarcastic "critics of prevention", by the way, always morph into the pontificating "critics in hindsight" that blast away without mercy when there is a "failure of imagination"; or for "not connecting the dots"; or because "not enough planning in advance" when something terrible occurs.
Thus you have the infallible logic of the critc of prevention, and the ready-made fall guy in whoever is courageous enough to put his money where his mouth is to try to prevent something terrible from happening.
The infallible logic is this: since the terrible event was prevented from occurring, what possible evidence exists that it would have taken place? Hence you can only "prove" that prevention would have worked if you don't use it.
The ready-made fall guy is created by the infallible logic. If the terrible event occurs and was preventable, and you did nothing--YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. If you prevent the terrible thing from occurring, but you cannot prove that it would have occurred if you hadn't prevented it--THEN YOU LIED, PEOPLE DIED FOR NOTHING, ETC ETC.. In short, you will be damned if you do prevent the terrible thing from happening; and damned if you don't.
In the end, it matters what people said and what they did or did not do. Putting events in perspective requires that kind of analysis, and so, articles like Baker's provides a real service to anyone who needs a dispassionate and rational evaluation of current events without resorting to the mass hysteria and selective amnesia that so characterizes the MSM, the Democrats, and the antiwar fanatics.
We come now to why anticipation (a mature psychological defense, and one of the few that is conscious and deliberate) is so superior to denial. The former prevents disasters, while the latter enables them.
Many on the left, including most of the Democratic Party leadership and our current POTUS are in major denial about terrorism (or should I say, "man-made disasters"?). Their spokespeople and pundits routinely claim that "fear of terrorism" was "inflamed and exploited" by the Bush Administration for the purpose of gaining power:
Bush opponents must finally overcome the one weapon which has protected George Bush again and again: fear. Fear of terrorism is what the Administration has successfully inflamed and exploited for four years in order to justify its most extreme and even illegal actions undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism.
This argument has been repeated many times by many on the left; and most recently by President Obama in a speech at the National Archives. What they are all basically arguing is that, instead of using a healthy and appropriate psychological defense called anticipation against terrorism and the Islamic fanatics within and without our society (who most certainly want to kill us and destroy our society)--we should instead switch to a psychotic one, denial. They insist that the fact that there have been no more 9/11's in the U.S. is pure dumb luck and that they were right to be more fearful of the evil Bush and Cheney than the poor oppressed dimwit holy warriors. Bush and Cheney were "shredding our Constitution", while the jihadists only wanted to kill us. Even now with Bush and Cheney out of office, we continue to hear this argument a lot. Quite a lot, acutally.
Besides the ongoing psychological displacement, there is a strong element of paranoia here too. And a noticeable touch of both projection (ask yourself who is really desperate about getting and keeping power) and hysteria. This exaggerated emotionalism from the left is used to describe normal people justifiably afraid of irrational fanatics not amenable to reason. The implication remains even in the current Administration that Bush and Cheney used these "inappropriate and irrational fears" of terrorism to "justify illegal actions" like torture.
While the US was busy fighting this illusory enemy, Bushitler and Darth Cheney were amassing power and intended to set themselves up as dictators and destroy our freedom. Only the brave and powerful Obamessiah was able to save us from such a horrible fate.
Anticipation is the realistic anticipation of or planning for future discomfort. This defense mechanism includes goal-directed and even overly careful planning or worrying--depending on the situation. Anticipating realistic events such as death or illness or separation and loss; and then consciously utilizing personal insight and self awareness to mitigate the worse effects, if possible is the height of maturity and healthy psychological functioning.
Let me quote George Vaillant (page 71):
Anticipation involves realistic and affect-laden planning for future discomfort. [...] of all the mature defenses, anticipation rearranges outer and inner reality the least. Rather than use self-deception, anticipation spreads anxiety out over time. It involves the self-inoculation of taking one's affective pain in small, anticipatory doses....In the worlds of the psychoanalyst Heinz Hartmann, one of the pioneers of ego psychology, "The familiar function of anticipating the future, orienting our actions according to it and correctly relating means and ends to each other...is an ego function and, surely, an adaption process of the highest significance."
[...]
Most of us, like Scarlet O'Hara would prefer to "think about it tomorrow." Making a list of worries before embarking on a trip seems like a reasonable cognitive coping strategy. But nobody likes to worry; thus we "forget" to act on such advice. We would never miss planes or forget to floss our teeth if we had consciously pondered the unpleasant consequences in advance. Moreover, it is far easier to plan voluntarily for neutral events like plane trips and tooth decay than for affect-laden events like funerals and the real costs of war.
Anticipation, and the appropriate and realistic worry that an attack like 9/11--or even worse-- are the psychological factors that are protecting us, even as I write this post. President Bush and his administration by their actions have given the American people 6 years without an attack on the homeland (not that he will get any credit for it; and not that the left will credit the Patriot Act or even the increased surveillance of the NSA; or the actions of the military in Afghanistan or Iraq). To the political left, our safety is all a big mysterious and magical state of being independent of any actions to ensure it.
Or, as the left and its current leaders prefer to imagine: we have been safe because of "fear-mongering" and that the threat/risk is overblown.
Of course it is. Until another 9/11 happens. Or until something worse occurs. Then they will be all over Bush and Company for lying to us about the threat and screaming, "WHY DIDN'T YOU PROTECT US?" like the little children they are. Here is more from the Greenwald article:
What must be emphasized is that one can protect against the threat of
terrorism with courage, calm and resolve – the attributes which have always
defined our nation as it has confronted other threats. Hysteria and fear-mongering are the opposite of strength. The strong remain rational and unafraid.
Excuse me? What does this moron think the U.S. has been doing since 9/11? The courage, calm and resolve of both President Bush and our stalwart military forces has been nothing short of inspiring. I ask you to consider who it has been since 9/11 who "lack resolve". Who has been whining and sniping and insisting that "the war is lost" and that we should just give up and go home? Who is now saying that it's a fait accompli that Iran get nuclear weapons? Who is hysterical with rage at the very idea that Israel might do something to prevent that scenario from happening?
The left talks about "hysteria and fear-mongering" all the time. But, what is it except hysteria and fear-mongering that motivated people to believe that Bush and Cheney's goal was not to protect America, but to destroy it? What was it except hysteria that only focused on the daily death counts from Iraq, and not on the context of what our soldiers are dying for? What was it except hysteria that even today maintains that the death of 3000 innocent Americans at the hands of religious fanatics in ONE DAY is nothing to be concerned about; but the death of as many professional soldiers in eight YEARS is enough to cut and run? What is it but hysteria that negatively emphasizes the waterboarding of three (THREE!) high value terrorists in a desperate attempt to keep America safe from another attack?
There is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that the previous Administration did what it did in order to accumulate power. Quite the opposite, in fact. Bush persevered despite overwhelming opposition and negativ polls. Not only that, but there was a peaceful transition of power from Bush to Obama; a graciousness and a deliberate attempt to pass the torch in as civil a manner as possible. Compare that civility with the continuous incivility of Obama and his henchmen who cannot seem to utter a sentence without denouncing the former President and his people.
I would also like to point out to the denialists, that the strong are rational and appropriately afraid. Because if they are not afraid, they will die. If they do not take steps to protect themselves, they will die. If they ignore for too long the threats amassing to kill them, even the strong will die.
I am not arguing that there should be a carte blanche given to the executive branch of government. But even the Founding Fathers understood that during a war is no time to be arguing like children about who gets to do what. The Constitution allows the president to assume powers and responsibilities that he otherwise would not even want. It is truly hysteria and fear-mongering that motivates the left and the Democrats now.
I know peole who trembled in their beds at night in Ann Arbor, waiting for the Bush Gestapo to come and take them away. Underneath all the posturing about civil rights and such, paranoid people are actually very fearful people who are desperately avoiding dealing with their fear; that's why they are in denial of reality.
Those of us who prefer to be proactive and anticipate for future attacks are the ones who are dealing directly--and appropriately-- with our fears. We prefer anticipation and prevention over denial and disaster.
Monday, May 25, 2009
TIME TO CRANK UP THAT DIPLOMACY !
It may be time to bring Obama's diplomatic outreach to Iran to a the next higher hopeychangey level....And, while you're at it crank up the psychological denial, too:
Yeah, right. That's why Iranian generals are so excited about nuclear energy.
Oh, and this is good news, too. More diplomacy, please, since it is working so well with these regimes. (/sarcasm).
[Cartoons by Glenn McCoy]
UPDATE: The Big O says that, "North Korea is recklessly challenging the world." Ok. So what are you going to do about it, kid? The punks are feeling lucky these days for some reason.
Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons.
Yeah, right. That's why Iranian generals are so excited about nuclear energy.
Oh, and this is good news, too. More diplomacy, please, since it is working so well with these regimes. (/sarcasm).
[Cartoons by Glenn McCoy]
UPDATE: The Big O says that, "North Korea is recklessly challenging the world." Ok. So what are you going to do about it, kid? The punks are feeling lucky these days for some reason.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND, 2009
IN FLANDERS FIELDS
Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD
(1872-1918)
In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
ALL HE IS NOT SAYING IS....
Andy McCarthy makes two excellent points about Obama and the Constitution:
Over and over again I hear how "wonderful" Obama's rhetoric is; how much everyone responds to it and how it makes them hopeful about the future etc. etc. etc.
Frankly, I can barely stand to listen to the man. I have to read transcripts of most of his speeches because my reaction to his style is so negative. I don't like the sensation of being manipulated; nor do I like being lectured to by someone who instinctively believes they are far more virtuous than I am-- and intends to show me the error of my ways.
Understand that I listen to people for a living. I hear various degrees of honesty, sincerity, and real emotional pain being expressed on a regular basis. I also hear some of the most self-serving, dishonest and completely irresponsible utterings that it is possible to imagine. Yet, in my professional career, I have to freely admit that I have heard nothing like the deceitful and self-aggrandizing utterings of Barack Obama, which seem to get more and more pathological with every speech he gives. His most recent scam, in the National Archives in front of a fake copy of the U.S. Constitution just about takes the cake. This is not irony, so much as it is the grandiosity of tyranny.
Bill Clinton--who I actually liked for the most part; even his amusing narcissism, which seems so childishly innocent in retrospect--was completely harmless compared to the sociopathic statist that is our current POTUS.
Mark Levine in his excellent book Libery and Tyranny summarizes it best:
Next time you listen to the Obamessiah's speeches, listen to what he doesn't say. Listen to the vagueness, the vacuity. Listen to the lack of specifics and the blatant emotional manipulation. Listen to the cognitive dissonance between what he is saying in his seductive, sedating style; and what he is doing with his deliberate, statist national policies and his foreign policy that not only demeans America by apologizing for her very existence; but severly handicaps her ability to act in the future. Watch how he badmouths the previous Administration, then surrepticiously implements the same policies that kept us safe over the last 8 years. The only problem with this last is that by simultaneously denouncing the security policies he is embracing, he is making schizophrenics of all the honorable people who are working hard to keep this country safe.
How long can this schizophrenogenic behavior go on before it essentially cripples those same patriots--because their service and their patriotism can be rendered criminal on the slightest whim of this unprincipled coxcomb?
How long can you pretend to stand for peace, when you enthusiastically embrace lying, murdering, genocidal terrorists?
Of course, the Democratic Party has given Obama great role-models in this regard:
After only 120 days, the Obama style is all too apparent: the more earnestness he exhibits in his rhetoric ("We are a nation at war," he's no socialist, the last thing he wants to be doing is taking over banks and running auto companies, etc.) the less likely it is that his actions will comport with that rhetoric.
As yesterday's editorial notes, in the speech, the president accused President Bush of adopting an "ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to trust in our institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass.” Let's put aside that the first part of that assertion, as the editorial demonstrates, is absurd: the Bush policies were far from ad hoc, they have been spectacularly successful, and Obama himself (for all his disclaimers) is sustaining them. I want to focus on the second part.
When businesses fail, we have a framework, an institution, and a set of values that are triggered: The framework is called bankruptcy, the institution is the United States Bankruptcy Court, and the applicable values are found in the corpus known as federal bankruptcy law, which prescribe bedrock principles like: secured creditors take priority over unsecured creditors. Rather than trusting in those things and using settled law as a compass, Obama has adopted an ad hoc approach which has proved grossly ineffective and — given the moral hazard it infuses in the entire financial system — unsustainable.
Why isn't the GM debacle a violation of the "rule of law" that Pres. Obama and Attorney General Holder are so fond of lecturing us about?
Over and over again I hear how "wonderful" Obama's rhetoric is; how much everyone responds to it and how it makes them hopeful about the future etc. etc. etc.
Frankly, I can barely stand to listen to the man. I have to read transcripts of most of his speeches because my reaction to his style is so negative. I don't like the sensation of being manipulated; nor do I like being lectured to by someone who instinctively believes they are far more virtuous than I am-- and intends to show me the error of my ways.
Understand that I listen to people for a living. I hear various degrees of honesty, sincerity, and real emotional pain being expressed on a regular basis. I also hear some of the most self-serving, dishonest and completely irresponsible utterings that it is possible to imagine. Yet, in my professional career, I have to freely admit that I have heard nothing like the deceitful and self-aggrandizing utterings of Barack Obama, which seem to get more and more pathological with every speech he gives. His most recent scam, in the National Archives in front of a fake copy of the U.S. Constitution just about takes the cake. This is not irony, so much as it is the grandiosity of tyranny.
Bill Clinton--who I actually liked for the most part; even his amusing narcissism, which seems so childishly innocent in retrospect--was completely harmless compared to the sociopathic statist that is our current POTUS.
Mark Levine in his excellent book Libery and Tyranny summarizes it best:
The Statist in America is no less resolute than his European counterpart but, by necesity, he is more cunning--where the European lurches and leaps, the American's steps are measured but steady. In America, the Statist understands that his counterrevoultion must at least appear gradual and not revlutionary--sometimes even clothed in the flag and patriotism--lest his intentions become too obvious and thus alarming to his skeptics.
For the Statist, the international community and international organizations serve as useful sources for importing disaffection with the civil society. The Statist urges Americans to view themselves through the lenses of the those who resent and even hate them. He needs Americans to become less confident, to doubt their institutions, and to accept the status assigned to them by outsiders--as isolationists, invaders, occupiers, oppressors, and exploiters. The Statist wants Americans to see themselves as backward, foolishly holding to their quaint notions of individual liberty, private property, family, and faity, long diminished or jettisoned in other countries. They need to listen to the voices of condemnation from world capitals and self-appointed global watchdogs hostile to America's superior standard of living. America is said to be out of step and regressive, justifying the surrendering of its sovereignty though treaties and other arrangements that benefit the greater "humanity." And it would not hurt if America admitted its past transgressions, made reparations, and accepted its fate as just another aging nation--one among many.
Next time you listen to the Obamessiah's speeches, listen to what he doesn't say. Listen to the vagueness, the vacuity. Listen to the lack of specifics and the blatant emotional manipulation. Listen to the cognitive dissonance between what he is saying in his seductive, sedating style; and what he is doing with his deliberate, statist national policies and his foreign policy that not only demeans America by apologizing for her very existence; but severly handicaps her ability to act in the future. Watch how he badmouths the previous Administration, then surrepticiously implements the same policies that kept us safe over the last 8 years. The only problem with this last is that by simultaneously denouncing the security policies he is embracing, he is making schizophrenics of all the honorable people who are working hard to keep this country safe.
How long can this schizophrenogenic behavior go on before it essentially cripples those same patriots--because their service and their patriotism can be rendered criminal on the slightest whim of this unprincipled coxcomb?
How long can you pretend to stand for peace, when you enthusiastically embrace lying, murdering, genocidal terrorists?
Of course, the Democratic Party has given Obama great role-models in this regard:
Friday, May 22, 2009
TO BLOG OR NOT TO BLOG ?
To blog, or not to blog: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outraged leftys,
Or to take arms against a sea of insanities,
And by opposing cure them? To diagnose;
No more; but by our therapy to end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
The mind is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To diagnose;
To heal: perchance to cure: ay, there's the rub;
For in that healing of mind, what thoughts may come
When one has shunned reality,
It must give pause: there's the psychosis
That makes virtue of victimhood;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
And be oppressed ad infinitum?
The pangs of despised powerlessness,
The insolence of office and the flipflops
That narcissistic politics engenders?
Only those whose grandiosity
Is matched with unbounded self righteousness,
Who grunt and sweat for power o'er others.
But then the dread of life after the Internet,
The undiscover'd country from whose seduction
No blogger really returns, it puzzles the will
And makes us willing to bear all ill will
Of trolls and sock puppets of whom we know not of....
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the pajama revolution
Is mere addiction disguised by intellect.
The enterprise of blogging pithy connundrums
And exposing naked narcissism on the left,
Hath its merits and its pain. - Soft you now!
The fair Freud and Jung and Adler! Wizards!
Let unconscious memories be remember'd....
(with apologies to The Bard)
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outraged leftys,
Or to take arms against a sea of insanities,
And by opposing cure them? To diagnose;
No more; but by our therapy to end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
The mind is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To diagnose;
To heal: perchance to cure: ay, there's the rub;
For in that healing of mind, what thoughts may come
When one has shunned reality,
It must give pause: there's the psychosis
That makes virtue of victimhood;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
And be oppressed ad infinitum?
The pangs of despised powerlessness,
The insolence of office and the flipflops
That narcissistic politics engenders?
Only those whose grandiosity
Is matched with unbounded self righteousness,
Who grunt and sweat for power o'er others.
But then the dread of life after the Internet,
The undiscover'd country from whose seduction
No blogger really returns, it puzzles the will
And makes us willing to bear all ill will
Of trolls and sock puppets of whom we know not of....
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the pajama revolution
Is mere addiction disguised by intellect.
The enterprise of blogging pithy connundrums
And exposing naked narcissism on the left,
Hath its merits and its pain. - Soft you now!
The fair Freud and Jung and Adler! Wizards!
Let unconscious memories be remember'd....
(with apologies to The Bard)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)