More analysis of why the Left has abandoned all its former principles (if they ever had any besides the acquisition of power) and chosen to embrace tyranny and support anti-Americanism wherever they find it. Ross Terril in the Boston Globe proposes that they have switched dancing partners and are no longer dancing with Lady Liberty: (hat tip: Instapundit)
DEMOCRACY IS FRIEND to the common man and authoritarianism is a crutch for millionaires with a villa in Italy -- right? Maybe no longer. Lady Liberty has acquired a new dancing partner. Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy. American liberals now often spurn blue collar opinion that is democracy's fuel. They mostly reject global idealism that is liberty's post-communism vocation. This has allowed a Republican president to make democracy his cause. On the dance floor of the 21st century, the right embraces Lady Liberty.
A very interesting piece that I urge you to read. Someone in an email asked me why I am spending/wasting so much time dissecting the Left. It's a good question, and here's my answer.
I believe that the greatest threat in the world today is rampant Islamofascism and the terrorism they use to achieve their goal--worldwide tyranny in the name of religion. Those on the Left have allied themselves with the Islamofascists--some deliberately and consciously, understanding that the goals of the two movements have been similar all along; some unconsciously because they are unwilling to believe that their original premises ALWAYS enabled Evil and Tyranny.
Either way--deliberately or not--the Left is actively working to further the Islamofascist's agenda. The genius of George W. Bush is that his policies have made this obvious to the average American for the first time since the 60's. Instead of mere rhetoric about Freedom, Bush has acted andactually freed millions--he has taken the Left's "talking points"and shield away from them and exposed them for the hypocrites they have always been.
The Left has never taken responsibility for the millions of people killed and enslaved in the name of Communism and Socialism in the last century. They have hardly blinked an eye at the misery their theories have caused. They actually still believe that their ideas support the common man and enhance freedom. They see no moral difference between defending against terrorism and the terrorism itself. They are morally, intellectually, and spiritually bankrupt and have decided that an alliance with the terrorists is their last best way to achieve the power they have always desired and which has always been at the root of their theories. They have made a strategic mistake in their new alliance, because the superior nihlism of the Islamofascists will devour them when and if they succede in their plans for humanity--but that point is neither here nor there.
Although they are weakened by historical events over the last 20 years, the Left still has considerable power in the U.S. and other Western countries. By exposing their motives and their tactics, I like to think that I am doing my small share in the War on Terror.
To those who innocently embrace the Left and mistakenly believe that the U.S. is the greatest threat to Freedom in the world: WAKE UP AND SEE WHAT YOUR SIDE IS REALLY SUPPORTING. STOP ENABLING TERROR AND TYRANNY. STOP BEING A USEFUL IDIOT IN THIS NEW CENTURY.
In the name of the best within you, change partners and dance with Lady Liberty.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Weekly Insanity Update
Another Sunday, another roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the moronic and the otherwise unbelievable! Not a comprehensive list by any means this week, but I decided to leave a certain CU Professor, a CNN executive, and a nobody (or is he well-known?) gay/rightwing/porno-connected journalist off the list; so that naturally limited what was available! If you have any items to submit, feel free to email them to me.
1. And the winner in Iraq is....
2. YIKES!
3. I'll bet the human rights people are extremely upset about this!
4. An example of letting the inmates run the asylum?
5. This is a human...errrr...animal tragedy!
6. So what's next? Illegal bellybutton exposure?
7. Don't you hate when you forget to pay a doctor's bill and this happens to you?
8. YAWN.
9. With any luck, this is just someone's idea of a joke.
10. And we should listen to Kofi because....? (Is Iraq safe enough for the UNers? I didn't know.)
11. Bin Laden's Valentine's Day greeting! (hat tip: Betsy's Page)
1. And the winner in Iraq is....
2. YIKES!
3. I'll bet the human rights people are extremely upset about this!
4. An example of letting the inmates run the asylum?
5. This is a human...errrr...animal tragedy!
6. So what's next? Illegal bellybutton exposure?
7. Don't you hate when you forget to pay a doctor's bill and this happens to you?
8. YAWN.
9. With any luck, this is just someone's idea of a joke.
10. And we should listen to Kofi because....? (Is Iraq safe enough for the UNers? I didn't know.)
11. Bin Laden's Valentine's Day greeting! (hat tip: Betsy's Page)
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Gannon Has His Say
If anyone is interested, here's what Mr. Gannon has to say for himself. There seems to be a lot of Lefty outrage at his behavior, which so far seems a lot less problematic than Eason Jordan's.
I'd still like to see the Jordan videotape. If he was misquoted, I'd like to see for myself.
I'd still like to see the Jordan videotape. If he was misquoted, I'd like to see for myself.
Mars Doesn't Need Women
Unlike the movie , it appears that "Mars Doesn't Need Women"--at least according to the Russians.
This week, the director of Russia’s top space medical institute told students that only men should be allowed on the first mission to the Red Planet, because women are too weak to endure the flight's rigors. His comments once again exposed the internal contradictions of a country that put the first woman into space while having the reputation of being the last European bastion of male chauvinism.
How sad that in the 21st century there are so many morons of the male persuasion. I know many men who are "too weak to endure the flight's rigors"; and many women who would be far superior choices for a Mars Mission.
Women pioneers have existed throughout history. Think of Elizabeth Gunn, who with her four children braved the grueling 6 month trip around Cape Horn to California in 1851. Or you could go here, to read the profiles of the many other pioneer women, who--along with men every stage of the way--braved the new frontier of the American West.
Or, how about my own grandmother--Margaret Rizzi--who stowed away at the turn of the last century at the age of 16, and came to New York City, where, knowing not one soul, she established a business of her own and made her way in a new world.
Or you could look no further than Dr. Shannon Lucid, an American Shuttle astronaut since 1979 who served as a Board Engineer 2 on Russia’s Space Station Mir (launching March 22, 1996 aboard STS-76 and returning September 26, 1996 aboard STS-79). Dr. Lucid holds an international record for the most flight hours in orbit by any non-Russian, and holds the record for the most flight hours in orbit by any woman in the world. From February 2002 until September 2003, Dr. Lucid served as NASA’s Chief Scientist stationed at NASA Headquarters, Washington D.C., with responsibility for developing and communicating the agency’s science and research objectives to the outside world.
But hey, why spoil these male fantasies that women are weak and helpless? They make men feel so big and strong and virile and potent--especially when the men are really such pathetic wimps otherwise.
I remember a man pointing out to me that women weren't "cut out to be doctors"; and that "femininity is just the absence of masculinity" (I think he was referring to the fact that men have a "Y" Chromosome and women do not; or maybe he was referring to the somewhat overrated male appendage that is frequently called on to demonstrate some sort of superiority and is magically able to make men as a group better doctors, pilots, and probably garbage collectors and bloggers, too!).
I found it interesting (and hilarious) during my astronaut selection research, that the Russians, who used a stolen copy of the MMPI psychological test (which is proprietary) in their selection process; felt it necessary to change the names of some of the scales of the test. In particular, the "MALE / FEMALE" scale became the "COURAGE / DEPENDENCE" scale. No wonder Russian men feel so superior to women--they just defined it that way. More convenient for them probably.
Isn't it time we stopped this nonsense? Male or female; black or white; whatever. When it comes to space exploration or any other dangerous human endeavor -- only the BEST will survive. I believe there are inherent biological differences between men and women. Just as there are biological differences among individual women and individual men. So what? What counts is that we encourage equal opportunity for the most talented among us in every field--whether they be women or men.
Being the BEST doesn't depend on gender, race, religion, or creed. The factors it does depend on, I submit, women have in the same measure as men.
This week, the director of Russia’s top space medical institute told students that only men should be allowed on the first mission to the Red Planet, because women are too weak to endure the flight's rigors. His comments once again exposed the internal contradictions of a country that put the first woman into space while having the reputation of being the last European bastion of male chauvinism.
How sad that in the 21st century there are so many morons of the male persuasion. I know many men who are "too weak to endure the flight's rigors"; and many women who would be far superior choices for a Mars Mission.
Women pioneers have existed throughout history. Think of Elizabeth Gunn, who with her four children braved the grueling 6 month trip around Cape Horn to California in 1851. Or you could go here, to read the profiles of the many other pioneer women, who--along with men every stage of the way--braved the new frontier of the American West.
Or, how about my own grandmother--Margaret Rizzi--who stowed away at the turn of the last century at the age of 16, and came to New York City, where, knowing not one soul, she established a business of her own and made her way in a new world.
Or you could look no further than Dr. Shannon Lucid, an American Shuttle astronaut since 1979 who served as a Board Engineer 2 on Russia’s Space Station Mir (launching March 22, 1996 aboard STS-76 and returning September 26, 1996 aboard STS-79). Dr. Lucid holds an international record for the most flight hours in orbit by any non-Russian, and holds the record for the most flight hours in orbit by any woman in the world. From February 2002 until September 2003, Dr. Lucid served as NASA’s Chief Scientist stationed at NASA Headquarters, Washington D.C., with responsibility for developing and communicating the agency’s science and research objectives to the outside world.
But hey, why spoil these male fantasies that women are weak and helpless? They make men feel so big and strong and virile and potent--especially when the men are really such pathetic wimps otherwise.
I remember a man pointing out to me that women weren't "cut out to be doctors"; and that "femininity is just the absence of masculinity" (I think he was referring to the fact that men have a "Y" Chromosome and women do not; or maybe he was referring to the somewhat overrated male appendage that is frequently called on to demonstrate some sort of superiority and is magically able to make men as a group better doctors, pilots, and probably garbage collectors and bloggers, too!).
I found it interesting (and hilarious) during my astronaut selection research, that the Russians, who used a stolen copy of the MMPI psychological test (which is proprietary) in their selection process; felt it necessary to change the names of some of the scales of the test. In particular, the "MALE / FEMALE" scale became the "COURAGE / DEPENDENCE" scale. No wonder Russian men feel so superior to women--they just defined it that way. More convenient for them probably.
Isn't it time we stopped this nonsense? Male or female; black or white; whatever. When it comes to space exploration or any other dangerous human endeavor -- only the BEST will survive. I believe there are inherent biological differences between men and women. Just as there are biological differences among individual women and individual men. So what? What counts is that we encourage equal opportunity for the most talented among us in every field--whether they be women or men.
Being the BEST doesn't depend on gender, race, religion, or creed. The factors it does depend on, I submit, women have in the same measure as men.
Rather Redux
OK, I won't gloat. Especially since it is now "old" news (I go to bed too early!) I think the best point was made by Jonah Goldberg at the Corner. And, let's not forget Ace: "Jordan Says Journalists Targeted by Bloggers". Hah!
The First Amendment: A Brief Review
Boy, I really get tired of dealing with this one.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Perhaps it is time to review this, since everyone seems to go around screaming that their "freedom of speech" is being violated these days. Note the highlighted word "Congress". The first amendment prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't prevent anyone else from abridging someone's freedom of speech--for example ME, restricting the comments made on my blog for any arbitrary reason I may decide.
Is this shocking? It shouldn't be. Since only government can truly silence freedom of speech. If your employer doesn't like what you're saying and fires you, you can still say what you want while unemployed--you have just suffered some consequences for your particular opinion (and yes, it is terribly unfair, but what can you do? Other people have freedom of speech, too and sometimes it trumps yours-- like when you are on their property). If I don't like what you say on my blog, I could delete your comments--but you could go somewhere else and make them.
So you see (and I have pointed this out before) there is a difference between being able to speak freely, and having to deal with the consequences of your speech. The limit of consequences is the First Amendment, which prevents the government from making your speech illegal, thus keeping you out of jail or suffering a worse fate at the hands of Big Brother.
Betsy's Page sums it up:
When will these people understand that the First Amendment concerns the government's restriction of someone's right to speak, not a university's decision to invite or not invite someone to speak at their campus, particularly when that speaker is under suspicion of fraud in his academic research.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Perhaps it is time to review this, since everyone seems to go around screaming that their "freedom of speech" is being violated these days. Note the highlighted word "Congress". The first amendment prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't prevent anyone else from abridging someone's freedom of speech--for example ME, restricting the comments made on my blog for any arbitrary reason I may decide.
Is this shocking? It shouldn't be. Since only government can truly silence freedom of speech. If your employer doesn't like what you're saying and fires you, you can still say what you want while unemployed--you have just suffered some consequences for your particular opinion (and yes, it is terribly unfair, but what can you do? Other people have freedom of speech, too and sometimes it trumps yours-- like when you are on their property). If I don't like what you say on my blog, I could delete your comments--but you could go somewhere else and make them.
So you see (and I have pointed this out before) there is a difference between being able to speak freely, and having to deal with the consequences of your speech. The limit of consequences is the First Amendment, which prevents the government from making your speech illegal, thus keeping you out of jail or suffering a worse fate at the hands of Big Brother.
Betsy's Page sums it up:
When will these people understand that the First Amendment concerns the government's restriction of someone's right to speak, not a university's decision to invite or not invite someone to speak at their campus, particularly when that speaker is under suspicion of fraud in his academic research.
Friday, February 11, 2005
The Council Has Spoken !
The Watcher's Council has selected its BEST POSTS for this week:
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Bush Jong-Il The Sundries Shack
2. A Classic Case of Hysteria Dr. Sanity
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Just. Shut. Up. Victory Soap
2. Today's Hate Essay: Yo, Ward? What Are You DOING Here, Bitch? Hog on Ice
Don't forget to click over to the Watcher of Weasels to find out all the winners! It makes for great reading.
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Bush Jong-Il The Sundries Shack
2. A Classic Case of Hysteria Dr. Sanity
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Just. Shut. Up. Victory Soap
2. Today's Hate Essay: Yo, Ward? What Are You DOING Here, Bitch? Hog on Ice
Don't forget to click over to the Watcher of Weasels to find out all the winners! It makes for great reading.
Breathtaking Hypocrisy
Let me get this straight. Two Democrat members of congress (John Conyers of Michigan and Louise Slaughter of Rochester) are calling for congressional hearings because an unknown journalist, from an unknown news organization was given a press pass to White House news conferences; but no one appears to think that the comments to an international audience of a News Directer at CNN who accuses the US military of deliberately targeting journalists (without a shred of proof) is a big deal????
What if the journalist apologizes or "clarifies" his purpose in daring to ask a "pro-Bush" question?
Or, how about this: After 5 years of the most vile, vitriolic, no-holds-barred insults, insinuations and outright slander of the President of the United States; the Democrats are whining because they think the White House should stop its "personal attacks" on Harry Reid, when said "personal" attacks amount to a expose of his voting record over the years???? Reid has been the Democrat's Minority leader since December, 2004-so after a mere 6 weeks, the guy is offended!
And then there's this: The Democrats are denouncing Bush for being "partisan" and "dividing" instead of "uniting"; while at the same time doing this???
Wow. Breathtaking.
What if the journalist apologizes or "clarifies" his purpose in daring to ask a "pro-Bush" question?
Or, how about this: After 5 years of the most vile, vitriolic, no-holds-barred insults, insinuations and outright slander of the President of the United States; the Democrats are whining because they think the White House should stop its "personal attacks" on Harry Reid, when said "personal" attacks amount to a expose of his voting record over the years???? Reid has been the Democrat's Minority leader since December, 2004-so after a mere 6 weeks, the guy is offended!
And then there's this: The Democrats are denouncing Bush for being "partisan" and "dividing" instead of "uniting"; while at the same time doing this???
Wow. Breathtaking.
Nobel Peace Prize
Here is an idea for a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee that I can get behind! (hat tip: Free Thoughts) It has been given to several UN Agencies in the past; why not an entire country??
Don't Get Your Hopes Up
Cox and Forkum reminds us of the harsh reality of the "peace process" in the Middle East--especially if the Palestinians are involved. It reminds me a bit of Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football--how many times are we going to fall for that old trick? Time will tell if this time they mean it, but don't get your hopes up.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Piano Repairmen
One of my biochemistry professors in college passed on to me a powerful metaphor that I have appreciated almost daily in my professional life. He and I were discussing one day my interest in how the brain works and the concept of consciousness; and whether it would be better for me to go to medical school or to apply to study graduate biochemistry.
Think of the brain as a beautiful, elegant, and melodious grand piano, he told me. Now imagine that someone had taken an axe to that lovely piano, chopping it into millions of tiny little pieces. Biochemisty, he said, is picking up one of those millions of pieces and attempting to appreciate the sound of the music that could be played on the piano. Imagine Beethoven's 9th Symphony being predicted from the study of dopamine and norepinephrine pathways!
His point, I think, was that biochemistry, while it is one path to understanding, cannot begin to describe the vastly complex and intricate functioning of the human brain; and that it seems inconceivable that anyone could imagine all that the human mind is capable of from just a study of the interaction the small molecules within. At some point, the level of complexity reaches a certain threshold that makes it surpass the mere sum of its microscopic parts. I decided to go to medical school and eventually wound up in psychiatry (with a detour to get a graduate degree in biochemistry along the way).
So, I read the other day that Psychiatrists are beginning to believe in the reality of evil. Somehow, I was reminded of that professor's anecdote.
For a long time now, behavioral scientists have been somewhat overly giddy with the many practical successes in medicine and psychiatry directly attributable to understanding a few of the pieces of the chopped up piano. But however much they know and understand, they are no closer to really understanding either the human capacity to create beauty or its capacity to do evil.
Outside the ivory tower, though--here in the real world--we are able to feel awe listening to the beautiful strains of a Beethoven symphony; and likewise, we are also able to feel revulsion at the all too frequent evidence of human evil
Psychiatry is the branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. We are the piano repairmen of the medical world. We willingly use the science of the biochemists who create the drugs; but we should never forget that we are dealing with more than a conglomeration of chemicals and electrical circuits.
Good and evil exist within all humans--the capacity to create life and the capacity to desstroy it. I don't think that antidepressants would have helped Hitler appreciate the Jews; nor would placing Saddam on antipsychotics have helped the Iraqi people. And, even if they might have helped, those two psychopaths and thousands like them in history would have been unlikely to agree to treatment. There are some things that medication cannot fix. Some pianos that cannot be tuned--maybe because there is a crack in the baseboard;or the materials used in construction were warped; or even that those same materials were irreversibly changed by exposure to malignant environmental factors.
Any piano repairman will also tell you that some pianos start out as lemons (just as some cars) and cannot produce the same sounds as their peers. Some are so broken that even after repair they are not much more than junk.
It is possible we will never adequately be able to explain fully every aspect of human brain function--expecially what leads to good or evil--by resorting only to the chemicals and the electrical circuits. But maybe we don't have to.
Maybe it is just good enough to nurture the good and fight the evil, whenever we observe either in ourselves or in others.
Think of the brain as a beautiful, elegant, and melodious grand piano, he told me. Now imagine that someone had taken an axe to that lovely piano, chopping it into millions of tiny little pieces. Biochemisty, he said, is picking up one of those millions of pieces and attempting to appreciate the sound of the music that could be played on the piano. Imagine Beethoven's 9th Symphony being predicted from the study of dopamine and norepinephrine pathways!
His point, I think, was that biochemistry, while it is one path to understanding, cannot begin to describe the vastly complex and intricate functioning of the human brain; and that it seems inconceivable that anyone could imagine all that the human mind is capable of from just a study of the interaction the small molecules within. At some point, the level of complexity reaches a certain threshold that makes it surpass the mere sum of its microscopic parts. I decided to go to medical school and eventually wound up in psychiatry (with a detour to get a graduate degree in biochemistry along the way).
So, I read the other day that Psychiatrists are beginning to believe in the reality of evil. Somehow, I was reminded of that professor's anecdote.
For a long time now, behavioral scientists have been somewhat overly giddy with the many practical successes in medicine and psychiatry directly attributable to understanding a few of the pieces of the chopped up piano. But however much they know and understand, they are no closer to really understanding either the human capacity to create beauty or its capacity to do evil.
Outside the ivory tower, though--here in the real world--we are able to feel awe listening to the beautiful strains of a Beethoven symphony; and likewise, we are also able to feel revulsion at the all too frequent evidence of human evil
Psychiatry is the branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. We are the piano repairmen of the medical world. We willingly use the science of the biochemists who create the drugs; but we should never forget that we are dealing with more than a conglomeration of chemicals and electrical circuits.
Good and evil exist within all humans--the capacity to create life and the capacity to desstroy it. I don't think that antidepressants would have helped Hitler appreciate the Jews; nor would placing Saddam on antipsychotics have helped the Iraqi people. And, even if they might have helped, those two psychopaths and thousands like them in history would have been unlikely to agree to treatment. There are some things that medication cannot fix. Some pianos that cannot be tuned--maybe because there is a crack in the baseboard;or the materials used in construction were warped; or even that those same materials were irreversibly changed by exposure to malignant environmental factors.
Any piano repairman will also tell you that some pianos start out as lemons (just as some cars) and cannot produce the same sounds as their peers. Some are so broken that even after repair they are not much more than junk.
It is possible we will never adequately be able to explain fully every aspect of human brain function--expecially what leads to good or evil--by resorting only to the chemicals and the electrical circuits. But maybe we don't have to.
Maybe it is just good enough to nurture the good and fight the evil, whenever we observe either in ourselves or in others.
Suicide and Its Nuances
Wretchard has an interesting post discussing a recent essay by Nelson Ascher about the Left's desire for revenge since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The master at the Belmont Club concludes: "The Left may have embarked upon a journey of revenge. They will find suicide."
As a psychiatrist, I am aware that often, suicidal impules exist side by side with homicidal impulses. Like two sides of a coin, suicide and homicide are psychologically intertwined in that they both frequently originate from intense emotions of anger and rage; with one impulse directed outward and the other inward. This being so, suicidality can have a wide variety of expressions and patterns. Here is a list of a just a few of the patterns, where the anger/rage goes from MOST INTERNALIZED to MOST EXTERNALIZED:
1. The Hopeless, Passive Suicide
This suicidal person is totally withdrawn and passive in their suicidality. They may refuse to eat, preferring to waste away. Their hopelessness is pervasive and they are indifferent to the outside world because their anger is completely internalized.
2. The Lone Suicide
This is the person who is serious about suicide and plans it so that they will definitely be dead at the completion of their suicide act. They do not generally involve others and do not leave a suicide note. What would be the point?
3. The Ambivalent Suicide
Not so sure they really want to die, they leave lots of clues that they are thinking about killing themselves (e.g., calling friends, relatives, acquaintances, or hotlines); and choose methods that are likely to fail. They often do not succeed and are "rescued" at the last minute. If they do succeed it is because of some accident of fate. They leave suicide notes telling specific people it "wasn't their fault", often phrased so that it is clear that the suicide believes it was.
4. The Thoughtless Suicide
Well, most are thoughtless, but this kind is so wrapped up in themselves and their pain that they choose a type of suicide, not particularly realizing that they will likely kill other people when they kill themselves. Its not so much that they WANT to kill other people, its just that they are thoughless and preoccupied with their own pain and really don't care much about other's. The guy who left his SUV on the RR tracks in California, then jumped out at the last minute, causing death and destruction to everyone but himself is a good example.
5. The Angry Suicide (angry at a specific person)
This one is overtly angry--usually at a specific person (e.g., a woman who broke up with him) and intends to commit suicide, but ALSO wants to make sure the person he/she is angry with dies at the same time.
6. The Angry Suicide (angry at the world)
This is a clever variant of #5. Instead of killing themselves directly, they provoke authority (e.g., police) with the intent of making others do the dirty workfor them. They tend to see the problem something in other people, and not in themselves; so don't take any responsibility for their own feelings.
6. The Suicide Bomber
This one coldly and calculatingly straps explosives to him or herself, with the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible as they blow themselves up. They don't see anyone as "innocent" really--all are guilty of the sin of not believing what the bomber believes, and therefore all deserve of death. These individuals are the most outwardly focused, having completely purged any human feeling from their heart except rage. They also don't take any responsibility for their feelings, but expect to get rewarded for that fact.
I don't pretent that the list is exhaustive, but it gives you an idea of how the expression of suicidal behavior depends on the emotional state and self awareness of the suicidal person. At the one end of the spectrum, the person is totally consumed with anger toward himself; at the other, totally consumed with anger toward others.
Getting back to Wretchard's point: the Left may indeed be suicidal (and we have recently observed ample evidence of that side of their group personality), but I believe that many of their number are perfectly willing to strap on the explosives and take the U.S. and/or the Western Civilization along with them in their catastrophic death fantasy.
We are their target because they believe us guilty-guilty-guilty of the horrible sin of demonstrating to them the worthlessness of their ideology in the real world.
I wonder what the Left's version of the "72 virgins in heaven" reward is?
As a psychiatrist, I am aware that often, suicidal impules exist side by side with homicidal impulses. Like two sides of a coin, suicide and homicide are psychologically intertwined in that they both frequently originate from intense emotions of anger and rage; with one impulse directed outward and the other inward. This being so, suicidality can have a wide variety of expressions and patterns. Here is a list of a just a few of the patterns, where the anger/rage goes from MOST INTERNALIZED to MOST EXTERNALIZED:
1. The Hopeless, Passive Suicide
This suicidal person is totally withdrawn and passive in their suicidality. They may refuse to eat, preferring to waste away. Their hopelessness is pervasive and they are indifferent to the outside world because their anger is completely internalized.
2. The Lone Suicide
This is the person who is serious about suicide and plans it so that they will definitely be dead at the completion of their suicide act. They do not generally involve others and do not leave a suicide note. What would be the point?
3. The Ambivalent Suicide
Not so sure they really want to die, they leave lots of clues that they are thinking about killing themselves (e.g., calling friends, relatives, acquaintances, or hotlines); and choose methods that are likely to fail. They often do not succeed and are "rescued" at the last minute. If they do succeed it is because of some accident of fate. They leave suicide notes telling specific people it "wasn't their fault", often phrased so that it is clear that the suicide believes it was.
4. The Thoughtless Suicide
Well, most are thoughtless, but this kind is so wrapped up in themselves and their pain that they choose a type of suicide, not particularly realizing that they will likely kill other people when they kill themselves. Its not so much that they WANT to kill other people, its just that they are thoughless and preoccupied with their own pain and really don't care much about other's. The guy who left his SUV on the RR tracks in California, then jumped out at the last minute, causing death and destruction to everyone but himself is a good example.
5. The Angry Suicide (angry at a specific person)
This one is overtly angry--usually at a specific person (e.g., a woman who broke up with him) and intends to commit suicide, but ALSO wants to make sure the person he/she is angry with dies at the same time.
6. The Angry Suicide (angry at the world)
This is a clever variant of #5. Instead of killing themselves directly, they provoke authority (e.g., police) with the intent of making others do the dirty workfor them. They tend to see the problem something in other people, and not in themselves; so don't take any responsibility for their own feelings.
6. The Suicide Bomber
This one coldly and calculatingly straps explosives to him or herself, with the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible as they blow themselves up. They don't see anyone as "innocent" really--all are guilty of the sin of not believing what the bomber believes, and therefore all deserve of death. These individuals are the most outwardly focused, having completely purged any human feeling from their heart except rage. They also don't take any responsibility for their feelings, but expect to get rewarded for that fact.
I don't pretent that the list is exhaustive, but it gives you an idea of how the expression of suicidal behavior depends on the emotional state and self awareness of the suicidal person. At the one end of the spectrum, the person is totally consumed with anger toward himself; at the other, totally consumed with anger toward others.
Getting back to Wretchard's point: the Left may indeed be suicidal (and we have recently observed ample evidence of that side of their group personality), but I believe that many of their number are perfectly willing to strap on the explosives and take the U.S. and/or the Western Civilization along with them in their catastrophic death fantasy.
We are their target because they believe us guilty-guilty-guilty of the horrible sin of demonstrating to them the worthlessness of their ideology in the real world.
I wonder what the Left's version of the "72 virgins in heaven" reward is?
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Marital Therapy and Eyewitness Testimony
Here is an excellent reason (from a new blogger in the mental health field) why we need the videotape to know exactly what CNN executive Eason Jordon said at the Davos conference and in what context:
And, speaking of videotapes and eyewitness reports: I used to work in a clinic that videotaped all therapy sessions for training purposes. I saw many couples (oh, couples therapy--now, there's a mighty hot kitchen!). Over and over, I thought I heard one or the other member of the couple misrepresenting what had been said in a session. And, in such cases, I had the extremely satisfying option of saying, "Well, shall we look at the videotape to see what was actually said?" It was often a real mind-blower for the client to see how he/she had misperceived statements made only a few moments earlier. We all do this to a certain extent, constantly editing our memories in one direction or another. But some people do it to a much greater extent than others, and some people do it much more in one situation or another.
Certainly, we would all like the satisfaction of really knowing exactly what Jordan said, because until we do, the "he-said, she-said" aspect of this will not go away. As the neo-neocon points out, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable--especially when it involves something both sides are intensely emotional about.
And, speaking of videotapes and eyewitness reports: I used to work in a clinic that videotaped all therapy sessions for training purposes. I saw many couples (oh, couples therapy--now, there's a mighty hot kitchen!). Over and over, I thought I heard one or the other member of the couple misrepresenting what had been said in a session. And, in such cases, I had the extremely satisfying option of saying, "Well, shall we look at the videotape to see what was actually said?" It was often a real mind-blower for the client to see how he/she had misperceived statements made only a few moments earlier. We all do this to a certain extent, constantly editing our memories in one direction or another. But some people do it to a much greater extent than others, and some people do it much more in one situation or another.
Certainly, we would all like the satisfaction of really knowing exactly what Jordan said, because until we do, the "he-said, she-said" aspect of this will not go away. As the neo-neocon points out, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable--especially when it involves something both sides are intensely emotional about.
Any Comments, Mr. Jordan?
As Glenn Reynolds points out: here's some REAL targeting of journalists in Iraq.
Any comments, Mr. Jordan? CNN?
Any comments, Mr. Jordan? CNN?
Disappearing Act
Iraq has disappeared into the same blackmedia hole that claimed Afghanistan! Isn't that amazing? This is a disappearing act worthy of the best circus and carnival acts. Today, I notice that on Memeorandum there is exactly ONE story related to Iraq--about the comeback of Ahmed Chalabi; and one commentary from the WSJ (registration required) on RealClearPolitics.
Was it only 10 days ago that Iraq was the focal point of the news and blogsphere? And the piece of the sky that was falling for the Chicken Littles? Now, it has all but disappeared from the radar, just as Afghanistan did after the successful election last year.
I suppose this means that the mainstream media can no longer find sufficiently negative stories with which to attack the current administration's policies in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Positive stories just don't cut it, I guess. Successful elections are borrrrrring.
It's so much more fun to be able to report things like what this Baltimore Mayor said; or a certain bizarre pseudo-intellectual from CU. Now that's the ticket!
Was it only 10 days ago that Iraq was the focal point of the news and blogsphere? And the piece of the sky that was falling for the Chicken Littles? Now, it has all but disappeared from the radar, just as Afghanistan did after the successful election last year.
I suppose this means that the mainstream media can no longer find sufficiently negative stories with which to attack the current administration's policies in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Positive stories just don't cut it, I guess. Successful elections are borrrrrring.
It's so much more fun to be able to report things like what this Baltimore Mayor said; or a certain bizarre pseudo-intellectual from CU. Now that's the ticket!
BAD BUSINESS
Why would anyone work for a company that made a policy like this? From the company website we get:
Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.
Hell, they don't just strongly support their employees living healthy lifestyles--they FORCE their employees to live healthy lifestyles. I wonder if they fire people who are HIV positive? Or have Hepatitis C? Or some other health risk? Maybe they will fire you if you have a strong family history of breast cancer; or heart disease? Maybe you would have to give up fast food--or your relatives?
I would never permit someone I worked for to tell me how I could live my life--especially my life outside of work. The slippery slope begins with the "best" of intentions. First- smoking (obviously for my own good); then maybe they won't keep you on because you put on a few pounds (not that I have, of course) or because you skydive or fly planes (too dangerous). I willing to bet that they'll keep you on if you're incompetent (it wouldn't be FAIR to discriminate against slackers).
In my humble opinion, it is just about the STUPIDEST business policy I have ever heard. You can bet that the potential pool of good employees available to this asinine company is going to rapidly shrink. Why? Because, if you're at all intelligent, you might begin to reflect on the logical next step for the idiots that run the company. YOUR lifestyle could be next.
BOYCOTT WEYCO! PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN UNITE! MAKE WEYCO WAY GONE!
The sooner these jerks go out of business, the better.
Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.
Hell, they don't just strongly support their employees living healthy lifestyles--they FORCE their employees to live healthy lifestyles. I wonder if they fire people who are HIV positive? Or have Hepatitis C? Or some other health risk? Maybe they will fire you if you have a strong family history of breast cancer; or heart disease? Maybe you would have to give up fast food--or your relatives?
I would never permit someone I worked for to tell me how I could live my life--especially my life outside of work. The slippery slope begins with the "best" of intentions. First- smoking (obviously for my own good); then maybe they won't keep you on because you put on a few pounds (not that I have, of course) or because you skydive or fly planes (too dangerous). I willing to bet that they'll keep you on if you're incompetent (it wouldn't be FAIR to discriminate against slackers).
In my humble opinion, it is just about the STUPIDEST business policy I have ever heard. You can bet that the potential pool of good employees available to this asinine company is going to rapidly shrink. Why? Because, if you're at all intelligent, you might begin to reflect on the logical next step for the idiots that run the company. YOUR lifestyle could be next.
BOYCOTT WEYCO! PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN UNITE! MAKE WEYCO WAY GONE!
The sooner these jerks go out of business, the better.
Transcript Discovered!
This just in! Iowahawk has the transcript of Eason Jordan's comments at Davos! (hat tip: LGF)
Sort of.
Sort of.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
A "Bad Case of Intellectual Cystitis"
Please read Mark Steyn's new essay in the Telegraph: "I hate to rain on Europe's parade, but....". It's fabulous, especially the end:
Now I take the point that "democracy" - as in elections - isn't every thing. In the development of successful nations, the universal franchise is usually the last piece of the puzzle, as it was in Britain. Anyone can hold an election: Mugabe did; so did Charles Taylor, the recently retired Psycho-for-Life of Liberia. The world's thugocracies have got rather skilled at being just democratic enough to pass muster with Jimmy Carter and the international observers: they kill a ton of people, put it on hold for six weeks and then, when the UN monitors have moved on, pick up their machetes and resume business as usual.
I prefer to speak of "liberty" or, as Bush says, "freedom", or, as neither of us is quite bold enough to put it, capitalism - free market, property rights, law of contract, etc. That's why Hong Kong is freer than Liberia, if less "democratic". If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe. The doom-mongers can mock Bush all they want. But they're spending so much time doing so, they've left themselves woefully uninformed on some of the fascinating subtleties of Iraqi and Afghan politics that his Administration turns out to have been rather canny about.
Will the naysayers continue forcing their ever more strained dribble of urine over the Bush landscape? Well, the Parisian journalist Frederic Royer has just launched a new weekly tabloid called L'Anti-Americain. The first issue includes a parodic diary by George W Bush with the entry: "Ask the CIA: Where's China?"
Hilarious! Bush is so dumb he can't even find the real 21st-century superpower on a map! As it happens, it was the Canadian prime minister, a renowned sophisticate and indeed a fluent franco-phone, who last year declared in public that China was the most important nation in the southern hemisphere.
If that 1999 New Hampshire primary-season gag is the highlight of M Royer's first issue, it seems to me that Europe's vast anti-American pissoir is coming down with a bad case of intellectual cystitis.
It is really worth your while to read the paragraphs that precede this conclusion, since Steyn is at his humorous/pithy best and starts out with a remarkable analogy. Let's just say it will piss some people off.
Now I take the point that "democracy" - as in elections - isn't every thing. In the development of successful nations, the universal franchise is usually the last piece of the puzzle, as it was in Britain. Anyone can hold an election: Mugabe did; so did Charles Taylor, the recently retired Psycho-for-Life of Liberia. The world's thugocracies have got rather skilled at being just democratic enough to pass muster with Jimmy Carter and the international observers: they kill a ton of people, put it on hold for six weeks and then, when the UN monitors have moved on, pick up their machetes and resume business as usual.
I prefer to speak of "liberty" or, as Bush says, "freedom", or, as neither of us is quite bold enough to put it, capitalism - free market, property rights, law of contract, etc. That's why Hong Kong is freer than Liberia, if less "democratic". If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe. The doom-mongers can mock Bush all they want. But they're spending so much time doing so, they've left themselves woefully uninformed on some of the fascinating subtleties of Iraqi and Afghan politics that his Administration turns out to have been rather canny about.
Will the naysayers continue forcing their ever more strained dribble of urine over the Bush landscape? Well, the Parisian journalist Frederic Royer has just launched a new weekly tabloid called L'Anti-Americain. The first issue includes a parodic diary by George W Bush with the entry: "Ask the CIA: Where's China?"
Hilarious! Bush is so dumb he can't even find the real 21st-century superpower on a map! As it happens, it was the Canadian prime minister, a renowned sophisticate and indeed a fluent franco-phone, who last year declared in public that China was the most important nation in the southern hemisphere.
If that 1999 New Hampshire primary-season gag is the highlight of M Royer's first issue, it seems to me that Europe's vast anti-American pissoir is coming down with a bad case of intellectual cystitis.
It is really worth your while to read the paragraphs that precede this conclusion, since Steyn is at his humorous/pithy best and starts out with a remarkable analogy. Let's just say it will piss some people off.
Calling A Spade A Spade
While the battle rages over CNN’s Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan's claim that the U.S. military is deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq (see here for a roundup on that), I think it's fair to raise the opposite question:
Are Journalists deliberately targeting the U.S. Military in Iraq?
Scrappleface is on the case!
Spurred by CNN executive Eason Jordan's accusations that U.S. troops have targetted journalists in Iraq, the Pentagon today issued revised rules of engagement for encounters between U.S. forces and the members of the news media
Under the new guidelines, U.S. troops will first offer journalists an opportunity to throw down their cameras and notebooks and approach with hands raised.
"We're there to kill terrorists, not journalists," said an unnamed Pentagon official. "The new rules are designed to make it easier for our personnel to distinguish between the two, since they're often found together and have similar objectives."
Once in captivity, the so-called Prisoners Of Undetermined Loyalty Embedded with Terrorists (POULET), will be treated according to the Geneva Conventions, although the Justice Department has yet to rule on their official status.
In psychology, humor is defined as the overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) in a way that provokes pleasure and laughter. Humor will let you call a spade a spade in a civilized manner. Perfect, huh?
Are Journalists deliberately targeting the U.S. Military in Iraq?
Scrappleface is on the case!
Spurred by CNN executive Eason Jordan's accusations that U.S. troops have targetted journalists in Iraq, the Pentagon today issued revised rules of engagement for encounters between U.S. forces and the members of the news media
Under the new guidelines, U.S. troops will first offer journalists an opportunity to throw down their cameras and notebooks and approach with hands raised.
"We're there to kill terrorists, not journalists," said an unnamed Pentagon official. "The new rules are designed to make it easier for our personnel to distinguish between the two, since they're often found together and have similar objectives."
Once in captivity, the so-called Prisoners Of Undetermined Loyalty Embedded with Terrorists (POULET), will be treated according to the Geneva Conventions, although the Justice Department has yet to rule on their official status.
In psychology, humor is defined as the overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) in a way that provokes pleasure and laughter. Humor will let you call a spade a spade in a civilized manner. Perfect, huh?
Slavery and Tyranny
Thomas Sowell reminds us about how slavery was ended in the last century: (hat tip: Betsy's Page)
...nowhere before the 18th century was there any serious question raised about whether slavery was right or wrong. In the late 18th century, that question arose in Western civilization, but nowhere else.
It seems so obvious today that, as Lincoln said, if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. But no country anywhere believed that three centuries ago....
The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen. Moreover, what destroyed slavery in the non-Western world was Western imperialism.
Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.
As anti-slavery ideas eventually spread throughout Western civilization, a worldwide struggle pitted the West against Africans, Arabs, Asians and virtually the entire non-Western world, which still saw nothing wrong with slavery. But Western imperialists had gunpowder weapons first and that enabled the West to stamp out slavery in other societies as well as in its own.
Sowell makes these comments in reviewing a book "Bury the Chains". I urge you to read the entire Townhall commentary. I had never thought to connect the abolition of slavery and the abolition of tyranny as parallel processes, but Sowell does, and it's very eye-opening.
Too many people today seem to rush to the conclusion that the equation of [moral conviction + business+ fighting against tyranny = the Good ] is a fascist plot. But those who have the courage to look beyond such stereotyping can see that history is filled with examples of free people with the courage of their convictions overcoming tyranny and hate. I believe we are in such an historical period now.
...nowhere before the 18th century was there any serious question raised about whether slavery was right or wrong. In the late 18th century, that question arose in Western civilization, but nowhere else.
It seems so obvious today that, as Lincoln said, if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. But no country anywhere believed that three centuries ago....
The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen. Moreover, what destroyed slavery in the non-Western world was Western imperialism.
Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.
As anti-slavery ideas eventually spread throughout Western civilization, a worldwide struggle pitted the West against Africans, Arabs, Asians and virtually the entire non-Western world, which still saw nothing wrong with slavery. But Western imperialists had gunpowder weapons first and that enabled the West to stamp out slavery in other societies as well as in its own.
Sowell makes these comments in reviewing a book "Bury the Chains". I urge you to read the entire Townhall commentary. I had never thought to connect the abolition of slavery and the abolition of tyranny as parallel processes, but Sowell does, and it's very eye-opening.
Too many people today seem to rush to the conclusion that the equation of [moral conviction + business+ fighting against tyranny = the Good ] is a fascist plot. But those who have the courage to look beyond such stereotyping can see that history is filled with examples of free people with the courage of their convictions overcoming tyranny and hate. I believe we are in such an historical period now.
Monday, February 07, 2005
True Colors
Victor Davis Hanson discusses the Boxer-Rice exchange as symbolic of a new reality:
Reflect for a moment. The first African-American woman to be nominated as Secretary-of -State was called a veritable liar on global television by Senator Boxer, with the sort of withering invective that was never unleashed against Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher, or any recent previous nominee for Secretary-of-State of the past century—or Boxer’s own colleagues who drafted and passed the resolution for war. Yet while Rice was calm for hours and relied on her ample memory, Boxer was abrasive in her few minutes of prepared attack and misled despite her voluminous notes.
This is all haywire. According to the 1950s Democratic mythology that we all grew up with, the stereotypical aggressor in such an unfair exchange should have been a senior Southern reactionary male, replete with drawl and barely contained racist anger, who ambushes the upstart and distorts the record in an act of name-calling—before hitting the airwaves to besmirch her further and, finally, to cut and paste the exchange into crass political ads to raise money for his own entrenched sinecure.
What in the world has happened to us?
VDH then answers his own question:
The former idealists and reformers have become backward-looking. Like most reactionaries whose comfortable world is vanishing, they are frustrated, looking for scapegoats—and acting very, very bizarrely.
Read the entire article. Of course I like it because it says what I've been saying all along: Something strange is happening here. The so-called "progressives" are now the reactionaries, looking backward and yearning for the good old days of the past; and the "conservatives" are forward-thinking and advancing to meet the challenges of the new century.
When did this remarkable role-reversal come into being? Well, I propose that it began with the intense disappointment felt by Democrats after the 2000 election did not go their way. But focal point of the change occurred on September 11, 2001; and after that the slope of the change increased dramatically.
When you speak to a Democrat or someone from the Left, just notice the barely (if at all) concealed rage and loathing. Notice the overidealization of Clinton and how "wonderful" it was back then when we were significantly less aware of the international terrorist threat. Notice the harping about Vietnam and the constant use of analogies and memes from that era. And then notice that the things they once fought for (minority/women's rights, freedom, equality) are nothing to them now.
Psychologically it is well-known that the true character of a person (and in this case a movement) may be easily hidden and covered up under most circumstances. But the character will shine through no matter how much a person might like to suppress it--when there is a crisis or an emergency. The response to 9/11 and its aftermath has shown that the true colors of many Democrats--especially the more Left-leaning ones.
And it ain't a pretty sight.
Reflect for a moment. The first African-American woman to be nominated as Secretary-of -State was called a veritable liar on global television by Senator Boxer, with the sort of withering invective that was never unleashed against Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher, or any recent previous nominee for Secretary-of-State of the past century—or Boxer’s own colleagues who drafted and passed the resolution for war. Yet while Rice was calm for hours and relied on her ample memory, Boxer was abrasive in her few minutes of prepared attack and misled despite her voluminous notes.
This is all haywire. According to the 1950s Democratic mythology that we all grew up with, the stereotypical aggressor in such an unfair exchange should have been a senior Southern reactionary male, replete with drawl and barely contained racist anger, who ambushes the upstart and distorts the record in an act of name-calling—before hitting the airwaves to besmirch her further and, finally, to cut and paste the exchange into crass political ads to raise money for his own entrenched sinecure.
What in the world has happened to us?
VDH then answers his own question:
The former idealists and reformers have become backward-looking. Like most reactionaries whose comfortable world is vanishing, they are frustrated, looking for scapegoats—and acting very, very bizarrely.
Read the entire article. Of course I like it because it says what I've been saying all along: Something strange is happening here. The so-called "progressives" are now the reactionaries, looking backward and yearning for the good old days of the past; and the "conservatives" are forward-thinking and advancing to meet the challenges of the new century.
When did this remarkable role-reversal come into being? Well, I propose that it began with the intense disappointment felt by Democrats after the 2000 election did not go their way. But focal point of the change occurred on September 11, 2001; and after that the slope of the change increased dramatically.
When you speak to a Democrat or someone from the Left, just notice the barely (if at all) concealed rage and loathing. Notice the overidealization of Clinton and how "wonderful" it was back then when we were significantly less aware of the international terrorist threat. Notice the harping about Vietnam and the constant use of analogies and memes from that era. And then notice that the things they once fought for (minority/women's rights, freedom, equality) are nothing to them now.
Psychologically it is well-known that the true character of a person (and in this case a movement) may be easily hidden and covered up under most circumstances. But the character will shine through no matter how much a person might like to suppress it--when there is a crisis or an emergency. The response to 9/11 and its aftermath has shown that the true colors of many Democrats--especially the more Left-leaning ones.
And it ain't a pretty sight.
Exquisite Irony
Carter Laren at Capitalism Magazine reminds us that the Nazis were SOCIALISTS (something the Left conveniently seems to be forever forgetting) as he comments on the Paula Zahn interview with Ward Churchill (I know I promised not to mention that guy again, but he insists on impinging himself on my radar--sort of like an incoming mortar attack):
In a bumbled interview last night, CNN anchor Paula Zahn expressed outrage at professor Ward Churchill's unwillingness to apologize for public remarks in which he compared the victims of 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann, the infamous Nazi bureaucrat responsible for managing the logistics of the holocaust.
But why are Zahn and others so shocked? Churchill's viewpoint is merely a logical extension of the ideas that Michael Moore and other Leftists have been advancing all along: namely, that corporate America is evil and capitalism is an oppressive, exploitative system deserving of punishment from seething Middle Easterners.
So long as the Leftist version of America is treated as legitimate, Churchill's characterization of World Trade Center office workers as "little Eichmanns"--technocratic cogs in a monstrous machine of capitalist imperialism--should come as no surprise.
Churchill shouldn't be denounced just for naming explicitly what others have only dared imply. Instead, the entire Left (including Churchill) should be detested for spewing their venomous ideas and for maligning the only economic system ever developed that respects individual rights: capitalism.
It has always struck me as exquisitely ironic that the Socialists of the Left equate Bush and Reagan (and anyone they don't like, for that matter) with the ultimate group carrying socialist credentials--the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) of Hitler. Hah!
In a bumbled interview last night, CNN anchor Paula Zahn expressed outrage at professor Ward Churchill's unwillingness to apologize for public remarks in which he compared the victims of 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann, the infamous Nazi bureaucrat responsible for managing the logistics of the holocaust.
But why are Zahn and others so shocked? Churchill's viewpoint is merely a logical extension of the ideas that Michael Moore and other Leftists have been advancing all along: namely, that corporate America is evil and capitalism is an oppressive, exploitative system deserving of punishment from seething Middle Easterners.
So long as the Leftist version of America is treated as legitimate, Churchill's characterization of World Trade Center office workers as "little Eichmanns"--technocratic cogs in a monstrous machine of capitalist imperialism--should come as no surprise.
Churchill shouldn't be denounced just for naming explicitly what others have only dared imply. Instead, the entire Left (including Churchill) should be detested for spewing their venomous ideas and for maligning the only economic system ever developed that respects individual rights: capitalism.
It has always struck me as exquisitely ironic that the Socialists of the Left equate Bush and Reagan (and anyone they don't like, for that matter) with the ultimate group carrying socialist credentials--the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) of Hitler. Hah!
Suicidal Behavior
I am not one of those who think it is a good idea for the country for the Democratic party to go in the direction that Howard Dean is likely to take it. The Dems are stuck in a quagmire of their own making and heading Left is only going to make them sink deeper. Don't do it! You really want to live--I know it!!
by Nick Anderson, Kentucky -- The Louisville Courier-Journal
by Nick Anderson, Kentucky -- The Louisville Courier-Journal
Who're You Gonna Trust?
Well I guess this is the latest twist that the media is applying in order to make it seem like Iraq is going to the dogs and that the US has wasted its time there:
"Iraq Shiite leaders demand Islam be the source of law "
And, of course, all the Left's drones are doing the usual groaning and moaning, along with several of the anxious Right.
Except, apparently, the headline is NOT TRUE--according to Omar at Iraq the Model, who says:
Anyway, back to the main subject and the alleged statement; I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story "Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani's aide says that no such statement was released".
And going back to Friday's news, another senior aide of Sistani said from Kuwait that "the future constitution of the country is an issue that is left for the National Assembly to deal with".
And, he goes on to say:
Well, maybe elections were religion Vs secularism, but that would be the perspective of the cleric-like politicians and not the people's. It is true that Mullahs seize power in Iran but that Iranian model cannot take place in Iraq, simply because there's no place for a totalitarian regime in future Iraq and power can not be monopolized by any particular small group.
Bottom line is, the last word will be the people's from now on in Iraq and Iraqis will never accept a one man rule no matter what; They're tired of being controlled and they will never, ever approve a new kind of tyranny under any name.
Let's give the Iraqis a chance here. They may indeed revert to tyranny at the drop of a hat, but it seems unlikely that the people who were so joyous on January 30th and danced in the street celebrating their newfound freedom would rejoice about a new plan of enslavement.
I'd like to let events play out a bit over the next year or so as the Iraqis write their consitution and struggle with keeping all the various factions united in a nation--in other words, take the baby steps necessary toward a free society. I don't particularly trust the media's negative spin--they have repeatedly shown they will do or say anything to make Bush look bad. And the next stage in demonstrating that Bush was wrong will be to spin everything the Iraqis do or say to make it seem like they WANT to be oppressed.
I'm sure there are all sorts of potential despots hanging around in the mosques and cafes, etc., eagerly waiting for the slightest opportunity to seize power and oppress the people of Iraq under their particular form of tyranny. These kind of religious and secular thugs exist in every society--even our own.
Like Omar, I will put my trust in Freedom, and the Human Spirit.
"Iraq Shiite leaders demand Islam be the source of law "
And, of course, all the Left's drones are doing the usual groaning and moaning, along with several of the anxious Right.
Except, apparently, the headline is NOT TRUE--according to Omar at Iraq the Model, who says:
Anyway, back to the main subject and the alleged statement; I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story "Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani's aide says that no such statement was released".
And going back to Friday's news, another senior aide of Sistani said from Kuwait that "the future constitution of the country is an issue that is left for the National Assembly to deal with".
And, he goes on to say:
Well, maybe elections were religion Vs secularism, but that would be the perspective of the cleric-like politicians and not the people's. It is true that Mullahs seize power in Iran but that Iranian model cannot take place in Iraq, simply because there's no place for a totalitarian regime in future Iraq and power can not be monopolized by any particular small group.
Bottom line is, the last word will be the people's from now on in Iraq and Iraqis will never accept a one man rule no matter what; They're tired of being controlled and they will never, ever approve a new kind of tyranny under any name.
Let's give the Iraqis a chance here. They may indeed revert to tyranny at the drop of a hat, but it seems unlikely that the people who were so joyous on January 30th and danced in the street celebrating their newfound freedom would rejoice about a new plan of enslavement.
I'd like to let events play out a bit over the next year or so as the Iraqis write their consitution and struggle with keeping all the various factions united in a nation--in other words, take the baby steps necessary toward a free society. I don't particularly trust the media's negative spin--they have repeatedly shown they will do or say anything to make Bush look bad. And the next stage in demonstrating that Bush was wrong will be to spin everything the Iraqis do or say to make it seem like they WANT to be oppressed.
I'm sure there are all sorts of potential despots hanging around in the mosques and cafes, etc., eagerly waiting for the slightest opportunity to seize power and oppress the people of Iraq under their particular form of tyranny. These kind of religious and secular thugs exist in every society--even our own.
Like Omar, I will put my trust in Freedom, and the Human Spirit.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Instantaneous Indignation
So far, I have it on good authority that Evil President Bush plans on cutting the following: (see here, here, here , for example)
-Local Law enforcement
-Health care
-Environmental Protection
-American Indian schools
-Home heating aid for the poor
-National Park Service
-School budgets in low-income communities
-Smithsonian Institution
-Arts and Humanities
-Farm and commodity programs
-Subsidy payments to farmers
I'm not sure, but this MONSTER we elected is probably also cutting aid to babies; dogs for blind people; grants for university professors; programs that help little old ladies cross the street; and subsidies for bloggers. Also, as part of this budget, the evil genius has authorized the use of force to make sure people starve, freeze, scream in pain, and wallow in misery. What a fiend!
So, let me get this straight. In the same breath that Democrats and the media are screaming about BUDGET DEFICITS and FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY and such; they basically imply that EVERYTHING the President plans to cut is OFF-LIMITS and SACRED? Is that the message here? In short, yes. That is the message.
I expect we will see even more laundry lists of things the evil bastard plans to trim in the coming days from our indispensable victim-watchers and compassionate elites in the media and on the Left.
No discussion here obviously. Just mindless opposition to whatever Bush wants to do. Just instantaneous NIMBY indignation: NOT IN MY BACK YARD--not MY program, baby!
Then whose?
Just once I'd like to see--instead of complete, knee-jerk opposition, whining, and incoherent rage--some SPECIFIC programs that the Democrats think should be cut.
Don't. hold. your. breath.
Weekly Insanity Update
Time for another round-up of the insane, ridiculous, bizarre and downright obnoxious and/or stupid. You should know that I don't make any of these things up ! Thanks to those of you who sent me suggestions and links.
1. Compare here and here. Have the brave Islamofascist thugs captured a GI Joe --or was it a Cody Special Ops doll? Oh, No! A string of kidnappings and threats across Iraq! And then, we have the big capture that we've been waiting for!
2. Oh my God! Have we discovered signs of intelligent life on the Left? Or am I just wishful thinking?
3. Understatment of the century.
4. If true, this represents a heretofor unheard of level of intelligence in a government agency. Call me skeptical.
5. Definitely NOT genocide.
6. What's the big deal? They consider Dan Rather a journalist, don't they? What does bias have to do with it?
7. What a difference a few years makes. Or maybe its just a different political party proposing it???? Wasn't this guy a Democrat?
8. Doesn't the term "suicidally stupid" seem to apply here? Or perhaps, "dhimwitted". And speaking of suicidally stupid.....
9. Oh, noooooooooooooooooooooooo! Don't go!
10. People for the Ethical Treatment of Computer Viruses? It's about time.
11. You really DON'T want to read this one. Remember, I warned you.
1. Compare here and here. Have the brave Islamofascist thugs captured a GI Joe --or was it a Cody Special Ops doll? Oh, No! A string of kidnappings and threats across Iraq! And then, we have the big capture that we've been waiting for!
2. Oh my God! Have we discovered signs of intelligent life on the Left? Or am I just wishful thinking?
3. Understatment of the century.
4. If true, this represents a heretofor unheard of level of intelligence in a government agency. Call me skeptical.
5. Definitely NOT genocide.
6. What's the big deal? They consider Dan Rather a journalist, don't they? What does bias have to do with it?
7. What a difference a few years makes. Or maybe its just a different political party proposing it???? Wasn't this guy a Democrat?
8. Doesn't the term "suicidally stupid" seem to apply here? Or perhaps, "dhimwitted". And speaking of suicidally stupid.....
9. Oh, noooooooooooooooooooooooo! Don't go!
10. People for the Ethical Treatment of Computer Viruses? It's about time.
11. You really DON'T want to read this one. Remember, I warned you.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Cole's a Lumberjack or Something....
With regard to the animated intellectual battle going on between Professor Juan Cole and Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner, I thought I'd weigh in with my assessment. Read on.
I'm On The Faculty
(in honor of Juan Cole and to the tune of "I'm a Lumberjack" from Monty Python)
Cole:
I'm on the faculty and I'm OK
I think all night and I sleep all day.
Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK
He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.
Cole:
I think ideas, I write them down, I go to the university.
On Wednesdays I go slumming and let students lecture me.
Professors:
He thinks ideas, he writes them down, He goes to the university.
On Wednesdays he goes slumming and lets students speak for free.
Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK
He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.
Cole:
I think ideas, I worship Kos, I wear weird-colored socks.
I put on Arab's clothing and hang around in mosques.
Professors:
He thinks ideas, he worships Kos, he wears weird-colored socks.
He puts on Arab's clothing and hangs around in mosques.
Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.
Cole:
I think ideas, I read big books, and know how things should be
I never have to bother with crude reality.
Professors:
He thinks ideas, he reads big books? He knows how things should be? ...
He's never has to bother with crude reality?
He's on the faculty and he's OK He thinks all night and he sleeps all day. ...
All:
He's/I'm on the faculty and he's/I'm OK He/I think all night and he/I sleep all day.
I'm On The Faculty
(in honor of Juan Cole and to the tune of "I'm a Lumberjack" from Monty Python)
Cole:
I'm on the faculty and I'm OK
I think all night and I sleep all day.
Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK
He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.
Cole:
I think ideas, I write them down, I go to the university.
On Wednesdays I go slumming and let students lecture me.
Professors:
He thinks ideas, he writes them down, He goes to the university.
On Wednesdays he goes slumming and lets students speak for free.
Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK
He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.
Cole:
I think ideas, I worship Kos, I wear weird-colored socks.
I put on Arab's clothing and hang around in mosques.
Professors:
He thinks ideas, he worships Kos, he wears weird-colored socks.
He puts on Arab's clothing and hangs around in mosques.
Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.
Cole:
I think ideas, I read big books, and know how things should be
I never have to bother with crude reality.
Professors:
He thinks ideas, he reads big books? He knows how things should be? ...
He's never has to bother with crude reality?
He's on the faculty and he's OK He thinks all night and he sleeps all day. ...
All:
He's/I'm on the faculty and he's/I'm OK He/I think all night and he/I sleep all day.
Book Recommendations
I do a LOT of reading and like most fanatical readers, I love to buy books. My adoring spouse, who is tolerant in most areas, has frequently threatened divorce if I purchase one more book (I have a library of thousands). He doesn't mean it, but it makes him feel much better to threaten me.
At any rate, I have decided to make some book recommendations to the readers of my blog. I have established links in the sidebar for you to get more information on the books over at Amazon.com. If you purchase them through the link, then I get a small portion of the proceeds and it helps me support this blog. These are all books I have read and enjoyed over the last three months. I hope you will enjoy them, too.
You also can feel free to drop some money in the Tip Jar (either PayPal or Amazon) at any time! If I raise a lot of money this way, I promise not to do an Andrew Sullivan. So, without further ado, here are some books I've read lately and think very highly of:
NON-FICTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Case For Democracy by Natan Sharansky
-In this book, Sharansky discusses the links between freedom and peace, tyranny and terror. I was struck by how much Sharansky's ideas must have influenced the President's foreign policy. Sharansky has been a KGB prisoner and a human rights hero, so he knows what he is talking about. I VERY highly recommend the book!
Anti-Americanism by Jean Francois Revel
-Revel spells out numerous examples of anti-Americanism from around the globe and demonstrates their intrinsically contradictory and illogical character. These are, he maintains, convincing signs that anti-Americanism is not a rational analysis of America's faults, but an obsession that borders on delusion. Anti-globalization, cultural criticisms, scapegoating--all of these are cogently and clearly discussed. In Revel's words: "[in every period of history marked by progress] there exists what one might call a 'laboratory society' where civilization's great inventions are tested. Not all are necessarily blessings, but they irresistibly prevail. Other nations have to adapt to these innovations, whether they like it or not....In the twentieth century, it was the turn of the United States. Hence it is not without reason, even if obviously overblown, that for billions of people the spread of the liberal economy is synonymous with Americanization." Extremely interesting!
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz
-I have written many times about the psychological and political connections between the Islamic terrorism of today and the Leftist movements of the 20th century. It is not an accident of history that they are connected, as Horowitz spells out. Horowitz is an historian, and his interest is in identifying those who wish for America's failure in the Middle East. His conclusions are provocative and will really make you think.
Blog by Hugh Hewitt
-A good read, telling you all you ever wanted to know about the phenomenon of blogging and the blogsphere. Not too deep, but I really enjoyed it.
FICTION RECOMMENDATIONS
As my old high school english teacher used say, "de gustabus non disputandem est" [concerning taste there is no argument]. All of the following books appeal to me because of the incredible creativity of their plots; the excellent writing of their authors; and their mesmerizing ability to immerse you in a world extremely different from our own, but at the same time hauntingly similar. Some are examples of great and detailed prose (Clarke); engaging and complicated plot and characters (Rowling); or breathtaking creativity and humor (Fforde). I certainly enjoyed them, and I hope you will! WARNING: I read a great deal of fiction--much more than non-fiction and have broad tastes, including science fiction, fantasy, mystery, and romance novels. The books listed below are some of my current favorites.
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke
ALL of the Harry Potter Books (including the one that will be coming out in June, 2005) by J.K.Rowling:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (publish date: June, 2005)
The Tuesday Next Series by Jasper Fforde, including:
The Eyre Affair
Lost in a Good Book
The Well of Lost Plots
Something Rotten
Happy Reading!
At any rate, I have decided to make some book recommendations to the readers of my blog. I have established links in the sidebar for you to get more information on the books over at Amazon.com. If you purchase them through the link, then I get a small portion of the proceeds and it helps me support this blog. These are all books I have read and enjoyed over the last three months. I hope you will enjoy them, too.
You also can feel free to drop some money in the Tip Jar (either PayPal or Amazon) at any time! If I raise a lot of money this way, I promise not to do an Andrew Sullivan. So, without further ado, here are some books I've read lately and think very highly of:
NON-FICTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Case For Democracy by Natan Sharansky
-In this book, Sharansky discusses the links between freedom and peace, tyranny and terror. I was struck by how much Sharansky's ideas must have influenced the President's foreign policy. Sharansky has been a KGB prisoner and a human rights hero, so he knows what he is talking about. I VERY highly recommend the book!
Anti-Americanism by Jean Francois Revel
-Revel spells out numerous examples of anti-Americanism from around the globe and demonstrates their intrinsically contradictory and illogical character. These are, he maintains, convincing signs that anti-Americanism is not a rational analysis of America's faults, but an obsession that borders on delusion. Anti-globalization, cultural criticisms, scapegoating--all of these are cogently and clearly discussed. In Revel's words: "[in every period of history marked by progress] there exists what one might call a 'laboratory society' where civilization's great inventions are tested. Not all are necessarily blessings, but they irresistibly prevail. Other nations have to adapt to these innovations, whether they like it or not....In the twentieth century, it was the turn of the United States. Hence it is not without reason, even if obviously overblown, that for billions of people the spread of the liberal economy is synonymous with Americanization." Extremely interesting!
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz
-I have written many times about the psychological and political connections between the Islamic terrorism of today and the Leftist movements of the 20th century. It is not an accident of history that they are connected, as Horowitz spells out. Horowitz is an historian, and his interest is in identifying those who wish for America's failure in the Middle East. His conclusions are provocative and will really make you think.
Blog by Hugh Hewitt
-A good read, telling you all you ever wanted to know about the phenomenon of blogging and the blogsphere. Not too deep, but I really enjoyed it.
FICTION RECOMMENDATIONS
As my old high school english teacher used say, "de gustabus non disputandem est" [concerning taste there is no argument]. All of the following books appeal to me because of the incredible creativity of their plots; the excellent writing of their authors; and their mesmerizing ability to immerse you in a world extremely different from our own, but at the same time hauntingly similar. Some are examples of great and detailed prose (Clarke); engaging and complicated plot and characters (Rowling); or breathtaking creativity and humor (Fforde). I certainly enjoyed them, and I hope you will! WARNING: I read a great deal of fiction--much more than non-fiction and have broad tastes, including science fiction, fantasy, mystery, and romance novels. The books listed below are some of my current favorites.
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke
ALL of the Harry Potter Books (including the one that will be coming out in June, 2005) by J.K.Rowling:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (publish date: June, 2005)
The Tuesday Next Series by Jasper Fforde, including:
The Eyre Affair
Lost in a Good Book
The Well of Lost Plots
Something Rotten
Happy Reading!
Academic Stupidity
Belmont Club has two posts on the Ward Churchill/Academic Freedom issue (Part I and Part II) that are really worth reading. I weighed in a few days back here, if you're interested.
I have to admit that I was probably wrong. Apparently the courts have decided that academic freedom can include personal speech when one works for a state or federal institution--which Churchill does. Sigh... it would have been so therapeutic if the university regents could have fired him. Unfortunately, it seems as if they are stuck with this moron for life (his or theirs). A clear case of Academic Stupidity. They should have been more careful who they gave tenure to, so they and we must live with the consequences of that. Parents, think very carefully before you send your children to that particular university.
On the other hand, apparently "academic freedom" does not apply to student free speech, as this article (and many other cases I cited previously) indicates. When it comes to students, you are only free to speak when your views are considered politically correct.
Maybe it is not so amazing that someone like Ward Churchill was able to gain tenure after all. He certainly didn't get it for his academic credentials.
And now I promise never to speak of him again--he's already getting far too much attention for such a jerk, and it will only reinforce his malignant narcissism.
I have to admit that I was probably wrong. Apparently the courts have decided that academic freedom can include personal speech when one works for a state or federal institution--which Churchill does. Sigh... it would have been so therapeutic if the university regents could have fired him. Unfortunately, it seems as if they are stuck with this moron for life (his or theirs). A clear case of Academic Stupidity. They should have been more careful who they gave tenure to, so they and we must live with the consequences of that. Parents, think very carefully before you send your children to that particular university.
On the other hand, apparently "academic freedom" does not apply to student free speech, as this article (and many other cases I cited previously) indicates. When it comes to students, you are only free to speak when your views are considered politically correct.
Maybe it is not so amazing that someone like Ward Churchill was able to gain tenure after all. He certainly didn't get it for his academic credentials.
And now I promise never to speak of him again--he's already getting far too much attention for such a jerk, and it will only reinforce his malignant narcissism.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Fanfare for the Common Man
Here is a moving tribute to the uncommonnly courageous people--men and women-- of Iraq (hat tip: The Corner)
And then after you watch the three-minute video linked above, and listen to Copeland's great music accompanying it, you can go here to read about a particularly pitiful piece of humanity and her insane perspective of the world. (hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
And as you read what she has to say, you might just hear--echoing in the background--the monumental theme from "Looney Tunes".
And then after you watch the three-minute video linked above, and listen to Copeland's great music accompanying it, you can go here to read about a particularly pitiful piece of humanity and her insane perspective of the world. (hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
And as you read what she has to say, you might just hear--echoing in the background--the monumental theme from "Looney Tunes".
Diagnosis: Tyranny
One of the most inspirational passages of President Bush's SOTU speech was a reprise of his Inaugural. It had to do with tyranny and freedom:
In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder.
If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades.
The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror and replace hatred with hope is the force of human freedom.
We have come to appreciate that the popular belief that the "root cause" of terrorism must be poverty is incorrect (see here), and what Bush is proposing as an alternative is rather radical: Tyranny is the root cause.
As Daniel McGroarty in RealClearPolitics put it:
Witness George W. Bush’s new twist on the root cause argument: What’s lacking isn’t economic opportunity, but political freedom – not material want, but moral autonomy.
Let me also propose something radical. TYRANNY is also the root cause of poverty. Wherever you find political oppression, you will find poverty. Wherever despots control the means of production, you will find poverty. That is why it is so easy to believe that poverty could be the "root cause". But it is only a symptom of a larger disease. Political freedom and the extent to which it enables capitalism and the free market determines the wealth of nations.
Victor Davis Hanson has a wonderful editorial at his site that pulls it all together (hat tip: LGF):
What explains this automatic censure of the United States, Israel, and to a lesser extent the Anglo-democracies of the United Kingdom and Australia? Westernization, coupled with globalization, has created an affluent and leisured elite that now gravitates to universities, the media, bureaucracies, and world organizations, all places where wealth is not created, but analyzed, critiqued, and lavishly spent.
Thus we now expect that the New York Times, Harper's, Le Monde, U.N. functionaries who call us "stingy," French diplomats, American writers and actors will all (1) live a pretty privileged life; (2) in recompense "feel" pretty worried and guilty about it; (3) somehow connect their unease over their comfort with a pathology of the world's hyperpower, the United States; and (4) thus be willing to risk their elite status, power, or wealth by very brave acts such as writing anguished essays, giving pained interviews, issuing apologetic communiqués, braving the rails to Davos, and barking off-the-cuff furious remarks about their angst over themes (1) through (3) above. What a sad contrast they make with far better Iraqis dancing in the street to celebrate their voting.
There is something else to this shrillness of the global throng besides the obvious fact of hypocrisy — that very few of the world's Westernized cynical echelon ever move to the ghetto to tutor those they champion in the abstract, reside in central Africa to feed the poor, give up tenure to ensure employment for the exploited lecturer, or pass on the Washington or New York A-list party to eat in the lunch hall with the unwashed. Davos after all, is not quite central Bolivia or the Sudan (Emphasis VDH). Just go read the whole thing, will you? (My comment!)
Many places in the world are afflicted with a disease that, if left untreated, is fatal. To put it in medical terms:
Diagnosis: TYRANNY
Symptoms: terrorism, poverty, hopelessness
Treatment: FREEDOM and its economic partner, CAPITALISM
In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder.
If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades.
The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror and replace hatred with hope is the force of human freedom.
We have come to appreciate that the popular belief that the "root cause" of terrorism must be poverty is incorrect (see here), and what Bush is proposing as an alternative is rather radical: Tyranny is the root cause.
As Daniel McGroarty in RealClearPolitics put it:
Witness George W. Bush’s new twist on the root cause argument: What’s lacking isn’t economic opportunity, but political freedom – not material want, but moral autonomy.
Let me also propose something radical. TYRANNY is also the root cause of poverty. Wherever you find political oppression, you will find poverty. Wherever despots control the means of production, you will find poverty. That is why it is so easy to believe that poverty could be the "root cause". But it is only a symptom of a larger disease. Political freedom and the extent to which it enables capitalism and the free market determines the wealth of nations.
Victor Davis Hanson has a wonderful editorial at his site that pulls it all together (hat tip: LGF):
What explains this automatic censure of the United States, Israel, and to a lesser extent the Anglo-democracies of the United Kingdom and Australia? Westernization, coupled with globalization, has created an affluent and leisured elite that now gravitates to universities, the media, bureaucracies, and world organizations, all places where wealth is not created, but analyzed, critiqued, and lavishly spent.
Thus we now expect that the New York Times, Harper's, Le Monde, U.N. functionaries who call us "stingy," French diplomats, American writers and actors will all (1) live a pretty privileged life; (2) in recompense "feel" pretty worried and guilty about it; (3) somehow connect their unease over their comfort with a pathology of the world's hyperpower, the United States; and (4) thus be willing to risk their elite status, power, or wealth by very brave acts such as writing anguished essays, giving pained interviews, issuing apologetic communiqués, braving the rails to Davos, and barking off-the-cuff furious remarks about their angst over themes (1) through (3) above. What a sad contrast they make with far better Iraqis dancing in the street to celebrate their voting.
There is something else to this shrillness of the global throng besides the obvious fact of hypocrisy — that very few of the world's Westernized cynical echelon ever move to the ghetto to tutor those they champion in the abstract, reside in central Africa to feed the poor, give up tenure to ensure employment for the exploited lecturer, or pass on the Washington or New York A-list party to eat in the lunch hall with the unwashed. Davos after all, is not quite central Bolivia or the Sudan (Emphasis VDH). Just go read the whole thing, will you? (My comment!)
Many places in the world are afflicted with a disease that, if left untreated, is fatal. To put it in medical terms:
Diagnosis: TYRANNY
Symptoms: terrorism, poverty, hopelessness
Treatment: FREEDOM and its economic partner, CAPITALISM
The Council Has Spoken!
I am deeply honored to have won this week's Watcher's Council Competition for BEST COUNCIL POST. If you have not already seen the post on this site, here is the Link:
Challenger - A Flight Surgeon Remembers
This post was very difficult and somewhat painful to write, but I'm glad I finally did after waiting to talk about it for 19 years. If you check it out, read the comments it has generated for several illuminating discussions about NASA.
Coming in 2nd is a great post by The Moderate Voice:
Remembering the Horrors and Significance of Auschwitz
The BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS chosen:
1st: Spelling It Out at Cold Fury
2nd: Bush Hatred Is Porn for the Left at Almost Daily
As always, I hope you will check out all the winners at the Watcher's site: Watcher of Weasels.
Challenger - A Flight Surgeon Remembers
This post was very difficult and somewhat painful to write, but I'm glad I finally did after waiting to talk about it for 19 years. If you check it out, read the comments it has generated for several illuminating discussions about NASA.
Coming in 2nd is a great post by The Moderate Voice:
Remembering the Horrors and Significance of Auschwitz
The BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS chosen:
1st: Spelling It Out at Cold Fury
2nd: Bush Hatred Is Porn for the Left at Almost Daily
As always, I hope you will check out all the winners at the Watcher's site: Watcher of Weasels.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
A Classic Case of Hysteria
I vividly remember a young patient who I first saw in the Emergency Room many years ago--I'll call her Barbara. Barbara was a 16 year old high school student who decided to skip classes at her school one afternoon and arrived home only to discover her mother in bed with a man who was not her father. Clearly upset, she ran out of the front door of the house and tripped over a potted plant, landing in the grass of the well-manicured front lawn. When she tried to get up from her fall, Barbara discovered that she was completely blind.
Barbara was brought in by her parents, and the story was related to me by the mother, who asked to see me alone. When I finally spoke to Barbara, she seemed completely indifferent to what had happened. Had she hit her head? No. She had fallen on her outstretched hands and closed her eyes and when she opened them she had been unable to see. Had she been upset, I asked. No. Was she angry at her mother? No. How did she feel about the fact that she couldn't see. What am I supposed to feel, she wanted to know and shrugged her shoulders with supreme boredom of a teenager. both of her parents were significantly more anxious and emotional about her situation than she was.
Her case was not difficult to diagnose (although we did all the necessary medical tests to make sure it was not a serious medical problem). Back then we called it "hysterical blindness"; now it is called a "Conversion Disorder". Barbara's case even had what was known as "la belle indifferance"--the notable lack of conern seen in the sufferers of a conversion disorder. You see, this was a classic Freudian case, the kind that he used to write about with all the obligatory symbolism (e.g., the blindness symbolized the fact that she didn't want to "see" or "look" at something that was too painful for her to accept). It is the kind of case that was very common in Freud's part of the century, when there was a general lack of sophistication about medicine and psychology. Hysteria become less and less frequently seen in the 70's and 80's as the public became more educated about medical and physiological matters. It is uncommon today, but still occurs occasionally.
On further questioning about what had made her come home that day, Barbara became quite animated as she described the precipitating event that lead to her unexpected decision to cut class. She had just been told by her boyfriend of several months that he was seeing another girl and wanted to break up with her. Feeling she would not be able to get through the rest of the day without crying, and not wanting her friends to see her upset, she came home. Interestingly, she was angry--extremely angry--at her ex-boyfriend and the girl he was now dating. She had no difficulty in expressing that emotion. When asked more confrontationally about what she found when she came home, she admitted it had been a shock to see her mother with another man, but what was REALLY bothering her was the deceitful, lying, ungrateful, evil boy who had broken up with her. She was able to express some decidedly homicidal rage about his behavior. About her mother's behavior, she had nothing to say.
Barbara, I submit to you, is a perfect metaphor for the Democratic Party of the 21st Century. Like Barbara, they have had a rude psychological shock, stumbled, and become blind to the serious events happening in the world around them. They feel they have been deceived and lied to --betrayed even--and have chosen to direct their rage against President Bush, the symbol of all the evil in the world. By doing so, they don't have to focus on the real evil --the horrific attacks of 9/11. They appear to be sublimely indifferent to the reality around them and choose to focus on events and incidents that are trivial in comparison. Like Barbara, their world is falling apart, but all they can do is close their eyes to it and focus ("displace") their anger onto a convenient target whose election was a blow to their narcissism.
Over the next two months, Barbara slowly became well again. In psychotherapy, we focused on trying to get her to "see" what she really couldn't bear to face--the breakup of her parent's marriage and the end of her childhood idealization of them--and come to grips with it. The loss of a fickle boyfriend she barely knew hurt also, but was not the real trauma she had to deal with. Somehow, she had to develop the necessary maturity to cope with the new reality of her world--to "see" it for what it was. And somewhere along that difficult psychological path, her vision returned.
I sincerely hope that the Democrats are able to negotiate that same path.
Barbara was brought in by her parents, and the story was related to me by the mother, who asked to see me alone. When I finally spoke to Barbara, she seemed completely indifferent to what had happened. Had she hit her head? No. She had fallen on her outstretched hands and closed her eyes and when she opened them she had been unable to see. Had she been upset, I asked. No. Was she angry at her mother? No. How did she feel about the fact that she couldn't see. What am I supposed to feel, she wanted to know and shrugged her shoulders with supreme boredom of a teenager. both of her parents were significantly more anxious and emotional about her situation than she was.
Her case was not difficult to diagnose (although we did all the necessary medical tests to make sure it was not a serious medical problem). Back then we called it "hysterical blindness"; now it is called a "Conversion Disorder". Barbara's case even had what was known as "la belle indifferance"--the notable lack of conern seen in the sufferers of a conversion disorder. You see, this was a classic Freudian case, the kind that he used to write about with all the obligatory symbolism (e.g., the blindness symbolized the fact that she didn't want to "see" or "look" at something that was too painful for her to accept). It is the kind of case that was very common in Freud's part of the century, when there was a general lack of sophistication about medicine and psychology. Hysteria become less and less frequently seen in the 70's and 80's as the public became more educated about medical and physiological matters. It is uncommon today, but still occurs occasionally.
On further questioning about what had made her come home that day, Barbara became quite animated as she described the precipitating event that lead to her unexpected decision to cut class. She had just been told by her boyfriend of several months that he was seeing another girl and wanted to break up with her. Feeling she would not be able to get through the rest of the day without crying, and not wanting her friends to see her upset, she came home. Interestingly, she was angry--extremely angry--at her ex-boyfriend and the girl he was now dating. She had no difficulty in expressing that emotion. When asked more confrontationally about what she found when she came home, she admitted it had been a shock to see her mother with another man, but what was REALLY bothering her was the deceitful, lying, ungrateful, evil boy who had broken up with her. She was able to express some decidedly homicidal rage about his behavior. About her mother's behavior, she had nothing to say.
Barbara, I submit to you, is a perfect metaphor for the Democratic Party of the 21st Century. Like Barbara, they have had a rude psychological shock, stumbled, and become blind to the serious events happening in the world around them. They feel they have been deceived and lied to --betrayed even--and have chosen to direct their rage against President Bush, the symbol of all the evil in the world. By doing so, they don't have to focus on the real evil --the horrific attacks of 9/11. They appear to be sublimely indifferent to the reality around them and choose to focus on events and incidents that are trivial in comparison. Like Barbara, their world is falling apart, but all they can do is close their eyes to it and focus ("displace") their anger onto a convenient target whose election was a blow to their narcissism.
Over the next two months, Barbara slowly became well again. In psychotherapy, we focused on trying to get her to "see" what she really couldn't bear to face--the breakup of her parent's marriage and the end of her childhood idealization of them--and come to grips with it. The loss of a fickle boyfriend she barely knew hurt also, but was not the real trauma she had to deal with. Somehow, she had to develop the necessary maturity to cope with the new reality of her world--to "see" it for what it was. And somewhere along that difficult psychological path, her vision returned.
I sincerely hope that the Democrats are able to negotiate that same path.
Get Over It
From Cox and Forkum:
Yes, this is a related, but new psychiatric syndrome--first described here
But for the people who suffer from it, the cure is considered worse than the disease: self-reflection; psychological insight; and rational thought.
Yes, this is a related, but new psychiatric syndrome--first described here
But for the people who suffer from it, the cure is considered worse than the disease: self-reflection; psychological insight; and rational thought.
Academic Freedom vs. Academic Accountability
It seems that there is a lot of confusion these days among university professors about the difference between the concepts of "academic freedom" and "academic accountability". Many of them appear to believe that having "academic freedom" means never having to say they're sorry--or at least, never being accountable for what they say; and forever protected from criticism of their their thoughts and opinions and behavior--no matter how UNacademic or asinine.
When the criticism originates in a scholarly journal in response to a scholarly publication, it is more palatable. But usually, scholarly journals are the repository of scholarly ideas--a place where those ideas can be presented with evidence or data to support them; discussed; disagreed with, or refuted. This is a form of academic accountability. Those professors--even with tenure--who never publish their ideas for the academic community to analyze or dissect, soon lose credibiity within their fields (or should, at any rate). Those with crackpot ideas; no evidence or data to demonstrate their ideas; are subject to the indignity of not being published at all--their papers and the elucidated ideas insufficiently robust to even make it onto the academic cutting block. These latter will never (well, hardly ever) achieve tenure--except in those fields where scholarly ability is not valued.
One such area appears to be "ethnic studies". I wonder what "ethnic study" led Professor Churchill to opine his delusional personal beliefs and disguised it under "academic freedom"? He is currently finding out about the impact of "peer review" as the general public become aware of some of the more outrageous things he says. And, isn't it interesting that --although his expressed feelings managed to hurt thousands of people who had relatives and loved ones in the 9/11 attacks; there is no outrage from the same multicultural, politically correct university community who are so often tenderly concerned about the hostile impact of "conservative" views-- speech is only free, apparently, for those who have views the university crowd agrees with (see here, for example)
Of course Churchill has a right to free speech. But just because Churchill works for a university does not make him some holy, sacred being whose ideas and opinions must forever be sacrosanct and unquestioned. Who does he think he is? Mohammed? Are his writings like the Koran that they must not be ridiculed and laughed at? That they can't be exposed for the academic shams they are? What will he do? Issue a fatwa against those who think he is a crackpot and that he should be fired?
Frankly, I personally agree that Churchill is a complete idiot and a malignant human being. He is certainly entitled to his opinions on September 11, and he can identify with and dress up as Che Guevara and other Leftist thugs all he wants for all I care (he's probably so narcissistic he thinks the picture linked to isn't completely hilarious). But if I lived in Colorado I would deeply resent that MY tax money was being used to promulgate his personal agenda; and not to further the cause of science and scholarship in any way that I could see.
It is probably too much to hope that his academic colleagues would see him for the joke that he is and laugh him out of the field. But I have no problem with him having to be accountable for his views to the people who pay him. And tenure or not, in my humble opinion, those people should fire his ass.
UPDATE: Sweet.
When the criticism originates in a scholarly journal in response to a scholarly publication, it is more palatable. But usually, scholarly journals are the repository of scholarly ideas--a place where those ideas can be presented with evidence or data to support them; discussed; disagreed with, or refuted. This is a form of academic accountability. Those professors--even with tenure--who never publish their ideas for the academic community to analyze or dissect, soon lose credibiity within their fields (or should, at any rate). Those with crackpot ideas; no evidence or data to demonstrate their ideas; are subject to the indignity of not being published at all--their papers and the elucidated ideas insufficiently robust to even make it onto the academic cutting block. These latter will never (well, hardly ever) achieve tenure--except in those fields where scholarly ability is not valued.
One such area appears to be "ethnic studies". I wonder what "ethnic study" led Professor Churchill to opine his delusional personal beliefs and disguised it under "academic freedom"? He is currently finding out about the impact of "peer review" as the general public become aware of some of the more outrageous things he says. And, isn't it interesting that --although his expressed feelings managed to hurt thousands of people who had relatives and loved ones in the 9/11 attacks; there is no outrage from the same multicultural, politically correct university community who are so often tenderly concerned about the hostile impact of "conservative" views-- speech is only free, apparently, for those who have views the university crowd agrees with (see here, for example)
Of course Churchill has a right to free speech. But just because Churchill works for a university does not make him some holy, sacred being whose ideas and opinions must forever be sacrosanct and unquestioned. Who does he think he is? Mohammed? Are his writings like the Koran that they must not be ridiculed and laughed at? That they can't be exposed for the academic shams they are? What will he do? Issue a fatwa against those who think he is a crackpot and that he should be fired?
Frankly, I personally agree that Churchill is a complete idiot and a malignant human being. He is certainly entitled to his opinions on September 11, and he can identify with and dress up as Che Guevara and other Leftist thugs all he wants for all I care (he's probably so narcissistic he thinks the picture linked to isn't completely hilarious). But if I lived in Colorado I would deeply resent that MY tax money was being used to promulgate his personal agenda; and not to further the cause of science and scholarship in any way that I could see.
It is probably too much to hope that his academic colleagues would see him for the joke that he is and laugh him out of the field. But I have no problem with him having to be accountable for his views to the people who pay him. And tenure or not, in my humble opinion, those people should fire his ass.
UPDATE: Sweet.
Amazing
Apparently--except for a toy soldier being held hostage--there is nothing going on in Iraq that the media is reporting. Let me rephrase that--there is nothing going on there (like Freedom, etc. ) that the media can twist to hurt the U.S. right now.
I noted just prior to the Iraqi election the number of stories being discussed over at Memeorandum that were negative doom and gloom essays/headlines. I guess Scrappleface was right! The Iraqi voting disrupted news reports of bombing! Amazing.
I noted just prior to the Iraqi election the number of stories being discussed over at Memeorandum that were negative doom and gloom essays/headlines. I guess Scrappleface was right! The Iraqi voting disrupted news reports of bombing! Amazing.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Yes, This IS Islam
Here is an eye-opening and brutal run-down on the crimes of Islam against women, and the "blindness" exhibited in Europe and western countries about the practices of muslims living in their countries that oppress women.
Western women have long wryly accepted that their mates rarely notice new outfits and new hairdos. Muslim males, by contrast, take a more intense interest in what female family members wear on their heads, what they put on their faces, how they wrap their bodies, who they shake hands with (no one) and talk to, and obsess more about their genitalia than British lap dance king Peter Stringfellow and the wardrobe chief for Caesar's Palace combined.
Little girls, who should be playing jump rope and taking tennis lessons, are forced to submerge their individuality in hot, uncomfortable, anonymous robes that severely limit movement. This is called teaching them to be "modest". They are made to attend school looking different, and apart, in their headscarves, a barrier, as it is intended to be, to integration.
All these elaborate protocols are done in the name of "protecting" women and girls from themselves. But the truth is, it is self-defense on the part of the Muslim man. To protect Muslim women, immigrant families to the West comply only 50 percent with normal Western dress codes. How often have I seen, in the south of France in the baking heat of summer, a North African family walking across a parking lot, daddy and the teenage son in smart Bermuda shorts, T-shirts and Reeboks, hair cut trendily short and gelled, as Western as you please, and lumbering along in their snappy wake, struggling with the shopping and the swathes of draperies, two or three ambulatory swathes of black sheeting.
That was just the introduction. Read all about the 14 year old girl, abducted and raped by an adult male, who on her rescue and return to her family was brutally murdered by her father for "shaming" the family. Or the bride dressing for a wedding ceremony stabbed 22 times by her cousin because his tender sensibilities were upset that she was marrying a divorced man.
These incidents ocurred in Western countries. If muslim women cannot get protection and justice in these countries, where can they get it? If Britain, Canada, France and Germany--supposedly FREE and under the rule of law, turn a blind eye to the despicable treatment of immigrant muslim women--what hope is there for those women? This probably explains their high suicide rate (four times the rate of the indiginous women).
Yet, over and over again we hear the refrain that the behavior of muslim men toward muslim women is "not" Islam. That it is contrary to "real" Islam (despite the manuals issued by imams on how to beat a wife or daughter so that it doesn't "show"). We even witness the apologists among the women who claim that covering themselves is their "choice" and allows them to be who they "really are".
Frankly, this bullshit is beginning to make me sick. I have no problem with such muslim women apologists wearing whatever they want. But their perspective would be ever so much more persuasive if women who choose NOT to have their individual identities submerged under a shapeless, formless and oppressive religion, were not murdered so frequently by raging, dysfunctional men, shaky about their masculinity.
The apologists, female and male, must face the reality: This IS Islam. Only then can something be done to change it.
UPDATE: And for those of you who STILL cannot accept the evil currently being practised under the auspices of Islam, here it is in their own words: "There can be no end to jihad" (hat tip: Jihad Watch)
Western women have long wryly accepted that their mates rarely notice new outfits and new hairdos. Muslim males, by contrast, take a more intense interest in what female family members wear on their heads, what they put on their faces, how they wrap their bodies, who they shake hands with (no one) and talk to, and obsess more about their genitalia than British lap dance king Peter Stringfellow and the wardrobe chief for Caesar's Palace combined.
Little girls, who should be playing jump rope and taking tennis lessons, are forced to submerge their individuality in hot, uncomfortable, anonymous robes that severely limit movement. This is called teaching them to be "modest". They are made to attend school looking different, and apart, in their headscarves, a barrier, as it is intended to be, to integration.
All these elaborate protocols are done in the name of "protecting" women and girls from themselves. But the truth is, it is self-defense on the part of the Muslim man. To protect Muslim women, immigrant families to the West comply only 50 percent with normal Western dress codes. How often have I seen, in the south of France in the baking heat of summer, a North African family walking across a parking lot, daddy and the teenage son in smart Bermuda shorts, T-shirts and Reeboks, hair cut trendily short and gelled, as Western as you please, and lumbering along in their snappy wake, struggling with the shopping and the swathes of draperies, two or three ambulatory swathes of black sheeting.
That was just the introduction. Read all about the 14 year old girl, abducted and raped by an adult male, who on her rescue and return to her family was brutally murdered by her father for "shaming" the family. Or the bride dressing for a wedding ceremony stabbed 22 times by her cousin because his tender sensibilities were upset that she was marrying a divorced man.
These incidents ocurred in Western countries. If muslim women cannot get protection and justice in these countries, where can they get it? If Britain, Canada, France and Germany--supposedly FREE and under the rule of law, turn a blind eye to the despicable treatment of immigrant muslim women--what hope is there for those women? This probably explains their high suicide rate (four times the rate of the indiginous women).
Yet, over and over again we hear the refrain that the behavior of muslim men toward muslim women is "not" Islam. That it is contrary to "real" Islam (despite the manuals issued by imams on how to beat a wife or daughter so that it doesn't "show"). We even witness the apologists among the women who claim that covering themselves is their "choice" and allows them to be who they "really are".
Frankly, this bullshit is beginning to make me sick. I have no problem with such muslim women apologists wearing whatever they want. But their perspective would be ever so much more persuasive if women who choose NOT to have their individual identities submerged under a shapeless, formless and oppressive religion, were not murdered so frequently by raging, dysfunctional men, shaky about their masculinity.
The apologists, female and male, must face the reality: This IS Islam. Only then can something be done to change it.
UPDATE: And for those of you who STILL cannot accept the evil currently being practised under the auspices of Islam, here it is in their own words: "There can be no end to jihad" (hat tip: Jihad Watch)
Defeatist Elitists
Thomas Sowell's column about the Iraqi elections is worth a read--as usual, he says it all and in a way I wish I could:
The defeatists have been defeated.
Remember all the political outcries that the Iraqi elections should be postponed because it would be impossible to hold elections with terrorism rampant throughout the country?
Fortunately, most Iraqis do not see the American media, with its distorted picture of their country, so they went to the polls -- with a higher turnout than in our own elections last November. Over here we worry about whether falling snow will reduce turnout. But the Iraqis braved threats of death in order to take control of Iraq.
First and foremost, it was a great victory for the Iraqi people. It was also a great victory for the magnetic appeal of freedom, even in a country that has so long been denied it. What some of our own politicians and media pundits are obviously afraid of is that it will also be seen as a victory for President Bush.
In the eyes of some people, nothing that the Bush administration does can be right. If the President were to create a program that would end earthquakes and tsunamis tomorrow, critics would demand to know why he is allowing wildfires and lightning to continue killing people.
The defeatists who have been defeated are already saying that the election is "just the first step" toward democracy. Every step is just one step. Invading Normandy was just one step, the battle of Midway was just one step. But, without those steps, World War II might not have been won.
Senator John Kerry loudly proclaimed on "Meet the Press" that the Iraqi election represented President Bush's "last chance" to "get it right." Nothing is easier than to demand more from somebody else -- even when you yourself have been an obstacle to achieving what has already been achieved.
Senator Kerry has a long record as a defeatist and obstructionist. Back in 1971, he said, "we cannot fight communism all over the world" -- adding in the same arrogant tone he uses today, "I think we should have learned that lesson by now."
Ronald Reagan never learned that lesson -- and hundreds of millions of human beings are free of communist tyranny today as a result. But during all the years when President Reagan was building up our military forces and our intelligence agencies, Senator Kerry was consistently voting against the appropriations required to do so.
What both men were doing was consistent with their respective assumptions and goals. Senator Kerry was just one of the defeatist elitists who regarded the communist bloc as a "fact of life" which we could only accept and which it was futile to waste resources opposing.
They imagined themselves to be so much wiser than other people that condescension was only natural, as they brushed aside any other viewpoint with such dismissive words as "cowboy" or even "stupid." The fact that events proved the defeatist elitists dead wrong in the Cold War -- and now again in the Iraqi elections -- has not yet broken through their smugness.
Probably nothing ever will. But that does not mean that the rest of us need to keep taking their high opinion of themselves seriously.
Senator Kerry has been a defeatist in another way. He has been quick to throw to the wolves foreign allies who have been depicted as mere accomplices in America's futile efforts. People like Senator Kerry not only pushed for our withdrawal from Vietnam but for our cutting off all aid to the South Vietnamese government that was resisting the North Vietnamese Communists -- who were backed by aid from the Communist bloc.
During the current struggle for Iraq, Senator Kerry has called Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet" -- once more giving aid and comfort to the enemy by undermining an ally, in this case a man who is putting his life on the line in a country where terrorist assassinations have become a way of life.
Senator Kerry's long years of defeatism, obstructionism and abetting our enemies have been largely overlooked by the mainstream media. But much of that media has been doing the same thing. The courage of the Iraqis should shame the defeatists -- if they had any shame.
But of course, they don't.
The defeatists have been defeated.
Remember all the political outcries that the Iraqi elections should be postponed because it would be impossible to hold elections with terrorism rampant throughout the country?
Fortunately, most Iraqis do not see the American media, with its distorted picture of their country, so they went to the polls -- with a higher turnout than in our own elections last November. Over here we worry about whether falling snow will reduce turnout. But the Iraqis braved threats of death in order to take control of Iraq.
First and foremost, it was a great victory for the Iraqi people. It was also a great victory for the magnetic appeal of freedom, even in a country that has so long been denied it. What some of our own politicians and media pundits are obviously afraid of is that it will also be seen as a victory for President Bush.
In the eyes of some people, nothing that the Bush administration does can be right. If the President were to create a program that would end earthquakes and tsunamis tomorrow, critics would demand to know why he is allowing wildfires and lightning to continue killing people.
The defeatists who have been defeated are already saying that the election is "just the first step" toward democracy. Every step is just one step. Invading Normandy was just one step, the battle of Midway was just one step. But, without those steps, World War II might not have been won.
Senator John Kerry loudly proclaimed on "Meet the Press" that the Iraqi election represented President Bush's "last chance" to "get it right." Nothing is easier than to demand more from somebody else -- even when you yourself have been an obstacle to achieving what has already been achieved.
Senator Kerry has a long record as a defeatist and obstructionist. Back in 1971, he said, "we cannot fight communism all over the world" -- adding in the same arrogant tone he uses today, "I think we should have learned that lesson by now."
Ronald Reagan never learned that lesson -- and hundreds of millions of human beings are free of communist tyranny today as a result. But during all the years when President Reagan was building up our military forces and our intelligence agencies, Senator Kerry was consistently voting against the appropriations required to do so.
What both men were doing was consistent with their respective assumptions and goals. Senator Kerry was just one of the defeatist elitists who regarded the communist bloc as a "fact of life" which we could only accept and which it was futile to waste resources opposing.
They imagined themselves to be so much wiser than other people that condescension was only natural, as they brushed aside any other viewpoint with such dismissive words as "cowboy" or even "stupid." The fact that events proved the defeatist elitists dead wrong in the Cold War -- and now again in the Iraqi elections -- has not yet broken through their smugness.
Probably nothing ever will. But that does not mean that the rest of us need to keep taking their high opinion of themselves seriously.
Senator Kerry has been a defeatist in another way. He has been quick to throw to the wolves foreign allies who have been depicted as mere accomplices in America's futile efforts. People like Senator Kerry not only pushed for our withdrawal from Vietnam but for our cutting off all aid to the South Vietnamese government that was resisting the North Vietnamese Communists -- who were backed by aid from the Communist bloc.
During the current struggle for Iraq, Senator Kerry has called Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet" -- once more giving aid and comfort to the enemy by undermining an ally, in this case a man who is putting his life on the line in a country where terrorist assassinations have become a way of life.
Senator Kerry's long years of defeatism, obstructionism and abetting our enemies have been largely overlooked by the mainstream media. But much of that media has been doing the same thing. The courage of the Iraqis should shame the defeatists -- if they had any shame.
But of course, they don't.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
50 Way To Force Regime Change
As the President prepares for his State of the Union Speech, I submit this little ditty as a follow-up on his inspiring Inaugural that envisioned the end of tyranny and peace through freedom (Sorry, Paul Simon!)
50 Ways To Force Regime Change
The problem was inside Iraq, Bush said to me
The answer was easy--just to bring democracy
We swore we'd help them in their struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to force regime change
He said it's really not my habit to intrude
And anyway, no matter what my meaning's misconstrued
But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being rude
There must be fifty ways to force regime change
Fifty ways to force regime change
We can ignore every whim, Kim
Better stop being bad, Assad
Just go to hell, Fidel
And all will be free
Get a new man, Iran
You'll find you can't ban spam
Let everyone be, Kofi
And embrace liberty
He said it grieves me so to generate dislike
There are so many ways for them to stop my strike
And then he just explained it as if talking to a tyke
About the fifty ways
He said why don't you-all just listen to my speech
And I'll try not to make that Boxer child screech
And then he just proceeded to discuss them each to each
There must be fifty ways to force regime change
Fifty ways to force regime change
We can ignore every whim, Kim
Better stop being bad, Assad
Just go to hell, Fidel
And all will be free
Get a new man, Iran
You really can't ban spam
Let everyone be, Kofi
And embrace liberty
50 Ways To Force Regime Change
The problem was inside Iraq, Bush said to me
The answer was easy--just to bring democracy
We swore we'd help them in their struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to force regime change
He said it's really not my habit to intrude
And anyway, no matter what my meaning's misconstrued
But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being rude
There must be fifty ways to force regime change
Fifty ways to force regime change
We can ignore every whim, Kim
Better stop being bad, Assad
Just go to hell, Fidel
And all will be free
Get a new man, Iran
You'll find you can't ban spam
Let everyone be, Kofi
And embrace liberty
He said it grieves me so to generate dislike
There are so many ways for them to stop my strike
And then he just explained it as if talking to a tyke
About the fifty ways
He said why don't you-all just listen to my speech
And I'll try not to make that Boxer child screech
And then he just proceeded to discuss them each to each
There must be fifty ways to force regime change
Fifty ways to force regime change
We can ignore every whim, Kim
Better stop being bad, Assad
Just go to hell, Fidel
And all will be free
Get a new man, Iran
You really can't ban spam
Let everyone be, Kofi
And embrace liberty
Ayn Rand and Me
This month marks the Centenary of Ayn Rand. Rand had a profound impact on me, beginning when I was 12 years old and read The Fountainhead for the first time. Looking back, I remember the enormous emotional wallop of that book. My parents were in the middle of a bitter, angry divorce and I felt completely helpless and hopeless in dealing with the situation. What was going to happen to me and my brothers? Ayn Rand couldn't have arrived at a more opportune time in my early life. It would be years before I fully appreciated the intellectual acccomplishment of the The Fountainhead, but the "sense of life" projected by the main characters hit me like a freight train. It was the first time that I considered the idea that I WAS IN CONTROL OF THE OUTCOME OF MY OWN LIFE! Yes, I was a child, but my parents actions or inactions could not determine my fate. Only I could do that. I was torn up inside by what was happening to my family, but it wasn't my fault, and I could not take responsibility for my mother and father's actions. Nor did I have to let their rage and bitterness destroy my joy in life.
It was truly a liberating experience for a young girl on the verge of womanhood, and is probably the main reason why I naturally came to believe that I could do anything I wanted to in my life. It was about the same time that I first started thinking about being a physician. [My mother had hoped I would become a nurse. My grandmother took me aside and said, "Don't listen to her--you live in America and you can be a doctor if you want to!" My grandmother immigrated from Italy just before WWI, because--as she used to tell me- "Women didn't stand a chance to do what they want there." She had been disappointed in my mother, who had enormous artistic and musical talent, but who abandoned it totally when she married my father. Ayn Rand would have loved my grandmother].
Over the next few years I read Anthem, We the Living, and finally Rand's magnum opus--Atlas Shrugged. By the time I graduated from high school, I was a devoted fan. And I had begun to appreciate the philosophy of individualism and freedom that she espoused in her books, not just the emotional sense of celebrating life and happiness. One of my close friends at the time and I actually subscribed to her newsletter, and hoped to go to New York and take several courses offered at the Nathaniel Brandon Institute, which promoted her philosophy. I completely idealized her as a person and believed that she was one of her own heroes. On that I was soon to be set straight. I won't go into the details as Nathaniel Brandon has written extensively on that period of time, but it soon became apparent to me that Ayn Rand had a dictatorial streak a mile long. Apparently, one was not to sacrifice one's own thoughts and integrity to anyone--except her. To be part of her inner circle meant unquestioning obedience or face expulsion.
Thus Ayn Rand taught me a second, truly important lesson. You can judge a person by their behavior; but you must judge an idea separate from the person who conceives itor promotes it. Ayn Rand had many fine intellectual qualities and her ideas were brilliant. But as a person, she managed to wreak havoc in the lives of all the people who were important to her and came to betray her own intellectual legacy [I have come to learn that Rand probably used/abused amphetamines to maintain her weight, and it strikes me that this may have had a pronounced effect on her increasing paranoia and irritabiity through her life--especially her personal life. How she would have hated that if it were known to her! She, who espoused reason above all, was slowly having her reason eaten away by a drug she believed was safe!). I came to understand Rand as a flawed human being--brilliant, but not exactly one of her own heroic characters. And I was able to appreciate that a critique of her or her ideas was not a betrayal of reason, as some of her supporters maintain to this day.
As for her ideas! Her denunciation of totalitarianism and tyranny. Her brilliant defense of capitalism. Her emphasis on reason as man's primary means of survival; on "selfishness" as the right of all individuals, and her rejection of the idea of "a moral duty to subjugate others for the sake of some "higher" good, whether for the sake of Allah in the Middle East or for the sake of the "common good" in the West. Freedom cannot be spread abroad nor protected here at home without a moral defense of individualism and capitalism. " (here)
In my opinion, her ideas represent moral and philosophical foundation of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". She was not the only philosopher who contributed to the defense of Individualism and Liberty, but she was the first to defend it on moral and ethical grounds; and the first to see Capitalism as the natural extension of human liberty. "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism," she wrote in 1971, "but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
I was fortunate to hear Rand speak just once while I was in college. When she died of lung cancer in 1982, it was a sad day for advocates of Freedom. Something she is reported to have said not long before her death was quite striking. She was talking about her own impending death, but rather than allowing death to be something that she passively accepted, she merely turned the concept around psychologically and claimed that death was the "end of the world"! Because of course, from her perspective, her death was the end of her world.
But Howard Roark, John Galt, Dagney Taggert, Francisco d'Anconia Hank Reardon and the worlds she created will live forever. Thank you, Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand Centenary commemorated by Cox and Forkum
It was truly a liberating experience for a young girl on the verge of womanhood, and is probably the main reason why I naturally came to believe that I could do anything I wanted to in my life. It was about the same time that I first started thinking about being a physician. [My mother had hoped I would become a nurse. My grandmother took me aside and said, "Don't listen to her--you live in America and you can be a doctor if you want to!" My grandmother immigrated from Italy just before WWI, because--as she used to tell me- "Women didn't stand a chance to do what they want there." She had been disappointed in my mother, who had enormous artistic and musical talent, but who abandoned it totally when she married my father. Ayn Rand would have loved my grandmother].
Over the next few years I read Anthem, We the Living, and finally Rand's magnum opus--Atlas Shrugged. By the time I graduated from high school, I was a devoted fan. And I had begun to appreciate the philosophy of individualism and freedom that she espoused in her books, not just the emotional sense of celebrating life and happiness. One of my close friends at the time and I actually subscribed to her newsletter, and hoped to go to New York and take several courses offered at the Nathaniel Brandon Institute, which promoted her philosophy. I completely idealized her as a person and believed that she was one of her own heroes. On that I was soon to be set straight. I won't go into the details as Nathaniel Brandon has written extensively on that period of time, but it soon became apparent to me that Ayn Rand had a dictatorial streak a mile long. Apparently, one was not to sacrifice one's own thoughts and integrity to anyone--except her. To be part of her inner circle meant unquestioning obedience or face expulsion.
Thus Ayn Rand taught me a second, truly important lesson. You can judge a person by their behavior; but you must judge an idea separate from the person who conceives itor promotes it. Ayn Rand had many fine intellectual qualities and her ideas were brilliant. But as a person, she managed to wreak havoc in the lives of all the people who were important to her and came to betray her own intellectual legacy [I have come to learn that Rand probably used/abused amphetamines to maintain her weight, and it strikes me that this may have had a pronounced effect on her increasing paranoia and irritabiity through her life--especially her personal life. How she would have hated that if it were known to her! She, who espoused reason above all, was slowly having her reason eaten away by a drug she believed was safe!). I came to understand Rand as a flawed human being--brilliant, but not exactly one of her own heroic characters. And I was able to appreciate that a critique of her or her ideas was not a betrayal of reason, as some of her supporters maintain to this day.
As for her ideas! Her denunciation of totalitarianism and tyranny. Her brilliant defense of capitalism. Her emphasis on reason as man's primary means of survival; on "selfishness" as the right of all individuals, and her rejection of the idea of "a moral duty to subjugate others for the sake of some "higher" good, whether for the sake of Allah in the Middle East or for the sake of the "common good" in the West. Freedom cannot be spread abroad nor protected here at home without a moral defense of individualism and capitalism. " (here)
In my opinion, her ideas represent moral and philosophical foundation of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". She was not the only philosopher who contributed to the defense of Individualism and Liberty, but she was the first to defend it on moral and ethical grounds; and the first to see Capitalism as the natural extension of human liberty. "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism," she wrote in 1971, "but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
I was fortunate to hear Rand speak just once while I was in college. When she died of lung cancer in 1982, it was a sad day for advocates of Freedom. Something she is reported to have said not long before her death was quite striking. She was talking about her own impending death, but rather than allowing death to be something that she passively accepted, she merely turned the concept around psychologically and claimed that death was the "end of the world"! Because of course, from her perspective, her death was the end of her world.
But Howard Roark, John Galt, Dagney Taggert, Francisco d'Anconia Hank Reardon and the worlds she created will live forever. Thank you, Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand Centenary commemorated by Cox and Forkum
I AM WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR....
Yeah right. Why aren't we hearing more women roaring their support for this? Standing up proudly for the women in Afghanistan and Iraq? Instead of wasting time waving their panties at Bush (here)? The Women's movement has become a bunch of lightweight pathetic whiners, whose priorities have become entangled in anti-democratic, freedom-oppressing totalitarianism.
Just another group of professional victims.
Just another group of professional victims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)