Time for the weekly roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the obnoxious, and the mildly annoying; not to mention outrageous. I don't make up these stories, they come to my inbox unaltered and in pristine quality. I just collect them. If you have a link to an insane story or post, send it my way for inclusion in next week's Update!
1. 1. Here is one thing we can definitely blame Bush for!
2. Cows have a secret life? Who knew?
3. Cognitive dissonance; contradiction in terms; and total misuse of language.
4. Titillating.
5. Is this the face that launched a thousand ships and then moved on?
6. Actually, I prefer them steamed.
7. And I always thought it was the length of a different appendage that determined this!
8. Interesting "demands" from a Sex Pistol, aren't they?
9. And he wouldn't he be able to do this "important work" while castrated because...?
10. The Kafkaesque logic of the government of Niger .
11. Tolkien knew something about this.
12. Fake singing banned in China.
12. Kiss of death. No, not the Godfather.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Three Little Lefty Blogs
It seems to Dr. Sanity that many of the key blogs that lean to the left have taken on the mantel of character assassinators and try their best to ruin the reputations of anyone who disagrees with them--like Brit Hume, Alan Greenspan, and a host of others too numerous to mention. Their task is a herculean one, since many many people think it is their own characters that require adjustment. For just one example, take a peek at this. It is a modest example of the kind of thing some of the Lefty blogs seem to delight in.
So in same juvenile spirit ,but with much more class, I offer the following Gilbert and Sullivan-inspired ditty. You, dear reader, get to pick which three Lefty blogs best fit the song!
(With abject apologies to the genius of Gilbert and Sullivan and their Mikado and for having the three little maids sink so low)
THREE LITTLE LEFTY BLOGS
Three little Lefty blogs are we
Vile as total jerks can be
Reveling in malicious glee
Three little Lefty blogs
Everyone is a source of fun
Nobody's safe, for we care for none
We are a joke that's just begun
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little blogs who, consciously
obfuscate the truth, you see
Freed from all integrity
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs
One little blog is a snide dumb-dumb
Two little blogs, each one a bum
Three little blogs is the total sum
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs
From three little blogs not a word that's true
Wondering who next to screw
Filled with hate-filled venom spew
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little blogs who, consciously
obfuscate the truth, you see
Freed from all integrity
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs !
So in same juvenile spirit ,but with much more class, I offer the following Gilbert and Sullivan-inspired ditty. You, dear reader, get to pick which three Lefty blogs best fit the song!
(With abject apologies to the genius of Gilbert and Sullivan and their Mikado and for having the three little maids sink so low)
THREE LITTLE LEFTY BLOGS
Three little Lefty blogs are we
Vile as total jerks can be
Reveling in malicious glee
Three little Lefty blogs
Everyone is a source of fun
Nobody's safe, for we care for none
We are a joke that's just begun
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little blogs who, consciously
obfuscate the truth, you see
Freed from all integrity
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs
One little blog is a snide dumb-dumb
Two little blogs, each one a bum
Three little blogs is the total sum
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs
From three little blogs not a word that's true
Wondering who next to screw
Filled with hate-filled venom spew
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little blogs who, consciously
obfuscate the truth, you see
Freed from all integrity
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs !
You Say You Want A Revolution?
Charles Krauthammer (my favorite psychiatrist pundit):
You say you want a revolution? Well, we DO want to change the world. We want more freedom, more democracy, more empowerment of indivudal people. And that seems to be what's happening. Read Krauthammer's entire piece.
Change is good. Let's have more!
And speaking of change-- neo-neocon discusses the process of change in "A Mind is A Difficult Thing To Change" (Part I and Part II):
Revolutions do not stand still. They either move forward or die. We are at the dawn of a glorious, delicate, revolutionary moment in the Middle East. It was triggered by the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and televised images of 8 million Iraqis voting in a free election. Which led to the obvious question throughout the Middle East: Why the Iraqis and not us?
To be sure, the rolling revolution began outside the Middle East with the Afghan elections. That was followed by the Iraqi elections. In between came free Palestinian elections that produced a moderate, reform-oriented leadership, followed by an amazing mini-uprising in the Palestinian parliament that rejected an attempt to force corrupt cronies on the new government.
And it continued -- demonstrations in Egypt for democracy, a shocking rarity that led President Hosni Mubarak to promise the first contested presidential elections in Egyptian history. And now, of course, the "cedar revolution" in Lebanon, where the assassination of opposition leader Rafiq Hariri led to an explosion of people power in the streets that brought down Syria's puppet-government in Beirut.
You say you want a revolution? Well, we DO want to change the world. We want more freedom, more democracy, more empowerment of indivudal people. And that seems to be what's happening. Read Krauthammer's entire piece.
Change is good. Let's have more!
And speaking of change-- neo-neocon discusses the process of change in "A Mind is A Difficult Thing To Change" (Part I and Part II):
When I first started this blog, one of the things I was sure I'd do an awful lot of writing about is what it means to change one's mind on a topic as fundamental and emotional as politics: who does it, why they do it, how they do it.
Friday, March 04, 2005
The Height of Folly
This article by Michael Billok discusses the recent decision by U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina regarding enemy combatant Jose Padilla. He takes the reader through the arguments and gives them historical perspective (see here also) and concludes:
Along the way to this excellent concluding point, Billok notes:"Instead, much like a certain presidential candidate, Judge Floyd believes that this is a law enforcement matter, not a military matter."
AHA! We get to the heart of the matter! The fundamental premises underlying this court decision, and indeed, underlying many on the Left who are arguing about the civil liberties of terrorists at Guantanamo or about Abu Ali or Jose Padilla are these: The War on Terror is not a REAL war. Dealing with terrorists is a LEGAL matter, not a MILITARY matter. And finally, a sub-premise: dealing with it in a MILITARY manner threatens our very way of life and the freedoms we enjoy.
We went throught most of this discussion (I thought) during the 2004 presidential campaign. These premises were (if I'm not mistaken) rejected by the American public when it rejected John Kerry. Indeed, a substantial number of Americans supported Kerry and his approach; but even more supported President Bush and his. Yet these fundamental premises have not gone away.
If you understand this premise, then all the behavior and rhetoric as well as the fears and anxieties of the Left fall nicely into place.
Let us examine the three aspects of this premise.
1. The War on Terror is not a REAL war.
In my opinion, the WOT has a ridiculous name--it should be the war on Islamofascism or the war on Islamic Extremists, which would be more to the point. But anyone who doubts that we are in a REAL war, with REAL enemies determined to kill as many Americans and eliminate Freedom from the face of the earth, is simply in complete denial. You are beyond rational discussion, and I cannot help you.
2. Dealing with terrorists is a LEGAL matter, not a MILITARY matter.
In the normal course of events, the President (or anyone else for that matter) has no authority to incarcerate American citizens without due process. Such a thing would be an unspeakable violation of individual rights AND do terrible damage to the very underpinnings of a "free" society--making a mockery of them.
I unreservedly agree with that statement. Reasonable people, however, can and have asserted that there are other factors and situations which must be taken into account. These situations are, fortunately fairly rare, but recognizing them as critical for the survival of the nation itself requires that we discuss them.
In fact, as the above links show, this issue has been rationally debated and assessed before in US history, and that the highest court in the land weighed in on the issue. During wartime, the President, as Commander in Chief of all the military services, does have the constitutional authority to declare someone captured in the course of waging war against us--even an American citizen--an enemy combatant; and can incarcerate that person or persons militarily until the cessation of combat. This is a significant Supreme Court decision relevant to the argument.
And, unless you are prepared to commit national suicide, the reasons for this court decision are clear: during war time our enemies want to kill us in any way they can; and they will use any means they can--including our own confused American citizens--to accomplish that goal. This was true during the Haupt case in World War II. It is even MORE true today, when weapons of mass destruction, able to kill thousands at a time, can fit into a small suitcase.
3. Dealing with it in a MILITARY matter threatens our very way of life and the freedom we enjoy.
Let's think about this one for a moment. It is a reasonable issue to bring up (as I mentioned previously here).
When I was in medical school, I rented a cute little house in Santa Monica, California. Being a trusting soul, I left my back door open all the time, even at night. I stubbornly defended this (in retrospect stupid) behavior to my astounded friends as an issue that was deeply important to me. I needed to believe that I could trust people. I felt I was saying "See, I trust you! You don't want to burgularize my house or attack me, because I believe in you and don't think you would do that!"
OK, I was very young and naiive then. I also felt that this genuinely trusting behavior demonstrated my committment to freedom (no locked doors for me!) and belief in the goodness of my fellow man.
It took three burgularies while I was at school to convince me that this was not a rational approach to dealing with my beliefs and feelings. Of course, I still believe in Freedom--more than just about anything. I also still believe in the basic goodness of people (but that goodnesss and good will too often gets twisted and manipulated from within and without). But I am no longer trusting to the point of idiocy in dealing with these aspects of my view of life.
So, what about you? Do you believe in freedom to the point that you would cheerfully leave the doors of your home unlocked (as I once did), so as not to impede the "freedom" of the murderer or burgular? Do you think freedom is so absolute a concept that, having entered your home, you would then happily assist the burgular in finding your treasures; and threatening your family with harm? Are you willing to let him kill you or your loved ones to make this point?
Let's take this one step further. I might be inclined--since I am still a trusting sort--to leave my doors unlocked most of the time, especially if I lived in a quiet town or neighborhood where there wasn't much crime and where such things are rare or even unheard of occurrance. I might consider it a reasonable and even occasionally a practical thing to do, as an expression of my rights as a citizen.
But what if the local police put out a bulletin informing me and other householders that they had reliable information that led them to believe there was a vicious murderer on the loose in my town or neighborhood; and that the m.o. of this murderer was to enter his vicitm's home to commit his murders.
Would it be reasonable and prudent under those circumstances to continue to blithely keep my doors unlocked, claiming that my "freedom" to keep it open would be violated were I to lock it; and wouldn't I, in a way, be almost challenging this vicious murderer to enter my home and do his worse?
Would it not be the height of folly to do such a thing? I may be a trusting soul, but I am no longer an irrational, completely emotional one. Under the circumstances where I knew there was a murderer out there, I would bolt my door until this person were apprehended and the danger to my home and the lives of my loved ones had passed.
Wouldn't you?
It is not a betrayal of the concept of a free society to batten down the hatches during a storm. It is not an offense to the goodness within mankind to recognize that there is evil out there, and that evil chiefly depends on these very values of the good to achieve its purposes. One of my favorite quotes is by the statesman Edmund Burke (on the sidebar of this blog): "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
One of the most reasonable things we can do --at a minimum, I would think--is not to make it so damn easy for evil to kill us.
UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy weighs in on the Padilla case.
Finally, the court completely ignored Supreme Court precedent. During World War II, U.S. citizen Herbert Haupt was captured while trying to blow up bridges, railroads and manufacturing plants for Nazi Germany. The Supreme Court held in its "Ex parte Quirin" decision that Haupt could be tried by military tribunal, and he was subsequently executed. Haupt and Padilla were both United States citizens; both planned acts of destruction on behalf of an enemy of the United States; and both were captured on U.S. soil, oddly enough, in Chicago. Yet the court practically dismissed Quirin out of hand, even stating that "Quirin involved a war that had a definite ending date. The present war on terrorism does not."
Enter Encyclopedia Brown. The boy detective creation of Donald Sobol, Brown could solve any mystery over dinner and before dessert. He once examined a sword that was supposedly inscribed and presented "at the First Battle of Bull Run" in 1861 and immediately classified it a hoax. How so? In 1861, there hadn't yet been a Second Battle of Bull Run, so nobody could know the 1861 battle was the "first," and not simply the only, battle.
So, a question for the judiciary: How did the Supreme Court know in 1942, the year Quirin was decided, that World War II would have "a definite ending date" in 1945? Do presidents in wars with known ending dates have more discretion to fight the enemy than presidents in wars where the conclusion is unknown? What's the matter? You haven't touched your dessert.
Along the way to this excellent concluding point, Billok notes:"Instead, much like a certain presidential candidate, Judge Floyd believes that this is a law enforcement matter, not a military matter."
AHA! We get to the heart of the matter! The fundamental premises underlying this court decision, and indeed, underlying many on the Left who are arguing about the civil liberties of terrorists at Guantanamo or about Abu Ali or Jose Padilla are these: The War on Terror is not a REAL war. Dealing with terrorists is a LEGAL matter, not a MILITARY matter. And finally, a sub-premise: dealing with it in a MILITARY manner threatens our very way of life and the freedoms we enjoy.
We went throught most of this discussion (I thought) during the 2004 presidential campaign. These premises were (if I'm not mistaken) rejected by the American public when it rejected John Kerry. Indeed, a substantial number of Americans supported Kerry and his approach; but even more supported President Bush and his. Yet these fundamental premises have not gone away.
If you understand this premise, then all the behavior and rhetoric as well as the fears and anxieties of the Left fall nicely into place.
Let us examine the three aspects of this premise.
1. The War on Terror is not a REAL war.
In my opinion, the WOT has a ridiculous name--it should be the war on Islamofascism or the war on Islamic Extremists, which would be more to the point. But anyone who doubts that we are in a REAL war, with REAL enemies determined to kill as many Americans and eliminate Freedom from the face of the earth, is simply in complete denial. You are beyond rational discussion, and I cannot help you.
2. Dealing with terrorists is a LEGAL matter, not a MILITARY matter.
In the normal course of events, the President (or anyone else for that matter) has no authority to incarcerate American citizens without due process. Such a thing would be an unspeakable violation of individual rights AND do terrible damage to the very underpinnings of a "free" society--making a mockery of them.
I unreservedly agree with that statement. Reasonable people, however, can and have asserted that there are other factors and situations which must be taken into account. These situations are, fortunately fairly rare, but recognizing them as critical for the survival of the nation itself requires that we discuss them.
In fact, as the above links show, this issue has been rationally debated and assessed before in US history, and that the highest court in the land weighed in on the issue. During wartime, the President, as Commander in Chief of all the military services, does have the constitutional authority to declare someone captured in the course of waging war against us--even an American citizen--an enemy combatant; and can incarcerate that person or persons militarily until the cessation of combat. This is a significant Supreme Court decision relevant to the argument.
And, unless you are prepared to commit national suicide, the reasons for this court decision are clear: during war time our enemies want to kill us in any way they can; and they will use any means they can--including our own confused American citizens--to accomplish that goal. This was true during the Haupt case in World War II. It is even MORE true today, when weapons of mass destruction, able to kill thousands at a time, can fit into a small suitcase.
3. Dealing with it in a MILITARY matter threatens our very way of life and the freedom we enjoy.
Let's think about this one for a moment. It is a reasonable issue to bring up (as I mentioned previously here).
When I was in medical school, I rented a cute little house in Santa Monica, California. Being a trusting soul, I left my back door open all the time, even at night. I stubbornly defended this (in retrospect stupid) behavior to my astounded friends as an issue that was deeply important to me. I needed to believe that I could trust people. I felt I was saying "See, I trust you! You don't want to burgularize my house or attack me, because I believe in you and don't think you would do that!"
OK, I was very young and naiive then. I also felt that this genuinely trusting behavior demonstrated my committment to freedom (no locked doors for me!) and belief in the goodness of my fellow man.
It took three burgularies while I was at school to convince me that this was not a rational approach to dealing with my beliefs and feelings. Of course, I still believe in Freedom--more than just about anything. I also still believe in the basic goodness of people (but that goodnesss and good will too often gets twisted and manipulated from within and without). But I am no longer trusting to the point of idiocy in dealing with these aspects of my view of life.
So, what about you? Do you believe in freedom to the point that you would cheerfully leave the doors of your home unlocked (as I once did), so as not to impede the "freedom" of the murderer or burgular? Do you think freedom is so absolute a concept that, having entered your home, you would then happily assist the burgular in finding your treasures; and threatening your family with harm? Are you willing to let him kill you or your loved ones to make this point?
Let's take this one step further. I might be inclined--since I am still a trusting sort--to leave my doors unlocked most of the time, especially if I lived in a quiet town or neighborhood where there wasn't much crime and where such things are rare or even unheard of occurrance. I might consider it a reasonable and even occasionally a practical thing to do, as an expression of my rights as a citizen.
But what if the local police put out a bulletin informing me and other householders that they had reliable information that led them to believe there was a vicious murderer on the loose in my town or neighborhood; and that the m.o. of this murderer was to enter his vicitm's home to commit his murders.
Would it be reasonable and prudent under those circumstances to continue to blithely keep my doors unlocked, claiming that my "freedom" to keep it open would be violated were I to lock it; and wouldn't I, in a way, be almost challenging this vicious murderer to enter my home and do his worse?
Would it not be the height of folly to do such a thing? I may be a trusting soul, but I am no longer an irrational, completely emotional one. Under the circumstances where I knew there was a murderer out there, I would bolt my door until this person were apprehended and the danger to my home and the lives of my loved ones had passed.
Wouldn't you?
It is not a betrayal of the concept of a free society to batten down the hatches during a storm. It is not an offense to the goodness within mankind to recognize that there is evil out there, and that evil chiefly depends on these very values of the good to achieve its purposes. One of my favorite quotes is by the statesman Edmund Burke (on the sidebar of this blog): "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
One of the most reasonable things we can do --at a minimum, I would think--is not to make it so damn easy for evil to kill us.
UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy weighs in on the Padilla case.
The Council Has Spoken !
This week's winners for BEST POSTS are up at the Watcher of Weasels:
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Freedom on the March Alpha Patriot
2. More Bad News From Russia: The Putin Youth The Moderate Voice
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. The United Kingdom and the United States: Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror
New Sisyphus
2. Washington's Birthday a National Holiday... Again Right Wing Nuthouse
Check out all the excellent winners selected by the Watcher's Council! And if you want to nominate one of your own posts, take advantage of the Watcher's "Link Whorage" offer.
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Freedom on the March Alpha Patriot
2. More Bad News From Russia: The Putin Youth The Moderate Voice
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. The United Kingdom and the United States: Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror
New Sisyphus
2. Washington's Birthday a National Holiday... Again Right Wing Nuthouse
Check out all the excellent winners selected by the Watcher's Council! And if you want to nominate one of your own posts, take advantage of the Watcher's "Link Whorage" offer.
The Physician is Healing Herself
Sorry for the slow posting. I've been feeling a bit under the weather. Will get back to it tomorrow sometime.
Feel free to browse around. And if you get bored, click on some of the links and visit some of the great blogs on my blogroll.
Feel free to browse around. And if you get bored, click on some of the links and visit some of the great blogs on my blogroll.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Iranian Propaganda Tidbits
Here are a few Iranian propaganda tidbits, from MEMRI:
9/11 and Pearl Harbor Planned by the US
The following are excerpts from an Iranian TV series called "The New Fascism":
Iranian strategic expert 'Ali 'Askari: We have seen that 9/11 was a domestic need of the American administration as well as an external need. So, the following suspicions grow stronger: Either the Americans were involved in this matter or they let the events of 9/11 develop as they developed.
Iranian political expert Manouchehr Mohammadi: There are many events like these in American history. It has been proven that the Japanese military attack on Pearl Harbor and on the American war ships was planned in advance and implemented with the authorization, support, and encouragement of US President Roosevelt. They needed a pretext such as this to enter WW II and in order to affect public opinion so it would give its consent to enter the war. The exact same thing happened on 9/11. This (tactic) is not used only by Hitler and George Bush. All the influential people and all the arrogant politicians need this pretext in order to carry out their aggression.
More Iranian TV (although it sounds like it could be here in the U.S.):
Comparing Bush to Hitler, Stalin, and Gengis Khan:
In his book Mein Kampf, Mr. Hitler explicitly referred to this, and when Goebbels wrote the Nazi party's platform, Hitler said to him: "Whenever you make a decision, the people will not be involved. Either the people is [sic.] with you or against you." This is exactly what Mr. Bush is saying today, following the events of 9/11. Today we are witnessing a new fascism, which is rooted in the old fascism. These are Mr. Hitler's words. Stalin, too, said to Trotsky, his last foreign minister: "If Russian society opposes you, it means its annihilation."
This is also what Genghis Khan wrote to his eldest son, Jochi, in his will. The message in all this is: Stay away from reason and logic, the public is not involved in your decisions or your government's decisions, and anything you decide– the public will either be with you or against you.
Or, how about this one:
Satan: An Anti-American Music Video
The following are excerpts from an anti American music video aired by Iranian TV:
Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny.
Allah Akbar, there is no god but Allah.
Allah Akbar, there is no god but Allah.
Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny. Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny.
By the law of the jungle he deploys his armies. He slaughters children using horrifying bombs in the name of peace he invades the country He mobilizes hatred, and spreads corruption.
By the law of the jungle he deploys his armies. He slaughters children using horrifying bombs, in the name of peace, he invades the country, He mobilizes hatred, and spreads corruption.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.
Sort of catchy, don't you think?
9/11 and Pearl Harbor Planned by the US
The following are excerpts from an Iranian TV series called "The New Fascism":
Iranian strategic expert 'Ali 'Askari: We have seen that 9/11 was a domestic need of the American administration as well as an external need. So, the following suspicions grow stronger: Either the Americans were involved in this matter or they let the events of 9/11 develop as they developed.
Iranian political expert Manouchehr Mohammadi: There are many events like these in American history. It has been proven that the Japanese military attack on Pearl Harbor and on the American war ships was planned in advance and implemented with the authorization, support, and encouragement of US President Roosevelt. They needed a pretext such as this to enter WW II and in order to affect public opinion so it would give its consent to enter the war. The exact same thing happened on 9/11. This (tactic) is not used only by Hitler and George Bush. All the influential people and all the arrogant politicians need this pretext in order to carry out their aggression.
More Iranian TV (although it sounds like it could be here in the U.S.):
Comparing Bush to Hitler, Stalin, and Gengis Khan:
In his book Mein Kampf, Mr. Hitler explicitly referred to this, and when Goebbels wrote the Nazi party's platform, Hitler said to him: "Whenever you make a decision, the people will not be involved. Either the people is [sic.] with you or against you." This is exactly what Mr. Bush is saying today, following the events of 9/11. Today we are witnessing a new fascism, which is rooted in the old fascism. These are Mr. Hitler's words. Stalin, too, said to Trotsky, his last foreign minister: "If Russian society opposes you, it means its annihilation."
This is also what Genghis Khan wrote to his eldest son, Jochi, in his will. The message in all this is: Stay away from reason and logic, the public is not involved in your decisions or your government's decisions, and anything you decide– the public will either be with you or against you.
Or, how about this one:
Satan: An Anti-American Music Video
The following are excerpts from an anti American music video aired by Iranian TV:
Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny.
Allah Akbar, there is no god but Allah.
Allah Akbar, there is no god but Allah.
Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny. Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny.
By the law of the jungle he deploys his armies. He slaughters children using horrifying bombs in the name of peace he invades the country He mobilizes hatred, and spreads corruption.
By the law of the jungle he deploys his armies. He slaughters children using horrifying bombs, in the name of peace, he invades the country, He mobilizes hatred, and spreads corruption.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.
Sort of catchy, don't you think?
Emotional Blackmail
Ann Coulter writes about the deplorable hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to Gays:
Democrats tried working out their frustrations on blacks for a while, but someone – I can't remember who, but it probably wasn't Sen. Robert Byrd – must have finally told them it really wasn't helping to keep disparaging every single black person in a position of authority in this Republican administration.
So now liberals are lashing out at the gays. Two weeks ago, the New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans. There is no principled or intellectual basis for these outings. Conservatives don't want gays to die; we just don't want to transform the Pentagon into the Office of Gay Studies.
By contrast, liberals say: "We love gay people! Gay people are awesome! Being gay is awesome! Gay marriage is awesome! Gay cartoon characters are awesome! And if you don't agree with us, we'll punish you by telling everyone that you're gay!"
In addition to an attack on a website reporter for supposedly operating a gay escort service and thereby cutting into the business of the Village Voice, another Times op-ed article the same day gratuitously outed the children of prominent conservatives.
These are not public figures. No one knows who they are apart from their famous parents. I didn't even know most of these conservatives
I have written before about the Left's "Rainbow Hypocisy" (i.e., their tendency to equally sneer and condescend to all minority groups, while at the same time claiming to represent their "best interests").
This is a particularly repellant example of how the Left holds minorities hostage and use them to further their agenda. Anyone who doesn't "toe the line"--or in this case is born into the "wrong" type of family-- is sacrificed to that agenda. As Coulter notes, this type of emotional blackmail is on the totalitarian's agenda.
Democrats tried working out their frustrations on blacks for a while, but someone – I can't remember who, but it probably wasn't Sen. Robert Byrd – must have finally told them it really wasn't helping to keep disparaging every single black person in a position of authority in this Republican administration.
So now liberals are lashing out at the gays. Two weeks ago, the New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans. There is no principled or intellectual basis for these outings. Conservatives don't want gays to die; we just don't want to transform the Pentagon into the Office of Gay Studies.
By contrast, liberals say: "We love gay people! Gay people are awesome! Being gay is awesome! Gay marriage is awesome! Gay cartoon characters are awesome! And if you don't agree with us, we'll punish you by telling everyone that you're gay!"
In addition to an attack on a website reporter for supposedly operating a gay escort service and thereby cutting into the business of the Village Voice, another Times op-ed article the same day gratuitously outed the children of prominent conservatives.
These are not public figures. No one knows who they are apart from their famous parents. I didn't even know most of these conservatives
I have written before about the Left's "Rainbow Hypocisy" (i.e., their tendency to equally sneer and condescend to all minority groups, while at the same time claiming to represent their "best interests").
This is a particularly repellant example of how the Left holds minorities hostage and use them to further their agenda. Anyone who doesn't "toe the line"--or in this case is born into the "wrong" type of family-- is sacrificed to that agenda. As Coulter notes, this type of emotional blackmail is on the totalitarian's agenda.
The Decline of the CIA
This essay by GABRIEL SCHOENFELD in the WSJ is absolutely incredible. It clearly, dispassionately and chillingly analyzes what has gone wrong at America's Central Intelligence Agency. After Schoenfeld is done with his analysis, you will begin to understand the dimensions of the problem that Porter Goss is facing. If Goss finds a solution that can fix this agency, it will be an absolute miracle, and he should be nominated for beatification.
Schoenfeld cites two works by former CIA personnel in his discussion. The first is the widely acclaimed "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (better known as Michael Scheuer) and the second is Melissa Boyle Mahle, author of "Denial and Deception."
Here is a sample comment or two about the first author by Schoenfeld:
Sentiments like these mark the author of "Imperial Hubris" as something of a political hybrid--a cross, not to put too fine a point on it, between an overwrought Buchananite and a raving Chomskyite. This alone, one might think, should have unfitted him for a high position of trust within the CIA. But that is not the end of it. Even as he lambastes the U.S. from his isolationist position, reserving special fury not only for America's alliance with Israel but for our "hallucinatory crusade for democracy," Mr. Scheuer also swivels to assail Washington for being insufficiently hawkish in waging the war on terror.
"An Unprepared and Ignorant Lunge to Defeat" is how Mr. Scheuer titles his chapter on Afghanistan. What appears to exercise him most is the fact that after September 11, the U.S. waited almost a month to respond to al Qaeda's attacks.
and:
All of which leaves only two questions. How did a person of such demonstrable mediocrity of mind and unhinged views achieve the rank he did in the CIA, and how could so manifestly wayward and damaging a work have been published by someone in the agency's employ? To the second question, at least, an answer of a sort is ready to hand, if one that raises disturbing questions of its own.
Of the emphasis during the Clinton administration on Affirmative Action at the CIA combined with the desire for it to maintain a "risk-averse" position vis a vis the White House (as documented in Denial and Deception" )Schoenfeld writes:
Today, after more than a decade of submission to this powerful tool, CIA employees can take pride in being part of a very inclusive institution indeed. One measure of this, as the agency itself boasts on its Web site, is the number of "affinity groups" it supports within its ranks. There is, for example, the Asian Pacific American Organization, which "assists in recruiting, mentoring, counseling, and monitoring the advancement of Asian American officers to insure that equity is occurring." The Black Executive Board functions to advance the "multicultural environment" and provides guidance "to senior management on all matters affecting recruiting, hiring, retention, networking, assignments, promotions, and career development opportunities." The Hispanic Advisory Council "provides input" on Hispanic issues, while the Native American Council serves as "a champion of diversity in the [CIA] workplace." There is also ANGLE, the Agency Network for Gay and Lesbian Employees, which is "geared toward fostering the principles of diversity and creating opportunities" for the agency's "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered employees."
These, then, have been the fruits of an effort going back well over a decade and consuming a large quotient of the agency's senior-level attention--the same period in which al Qaeda was gathering force and training thousands of Islamists, and when the CIA's overriding need, conspicuously unmet all those years, was the hiring of more officers capable of speaking and reading Arabic.
What it boils down to is that our major intelligence agency became a showcase for the government's affirmative action policies at the expense of actually doing the real intelligence work that might have prepared us for 9/11 and the rise of Islamofascism.
Of course, the decline of the CIA was multifactorial. But the primary rot can be traced to a decade old quest for mediocrity, incompetence and conformity to political correctness. Read the entire article.
Now a confession of sorts. When I first read the Gabriel Schoenfeld article it rekindled memories of my dealings with the CIA while a flight surgeon at NASA. It happened that I was fortunate enough to be one of the people invited on a trip in 1985 to the Soviet Union (the height of the Cold War). It was just after I had been the crew surgeon for a secret DoD space mission. Little did I realize that my participation in that mission was noticed by the Soviet authorities, who could not explain the presence of an otherwise unremarkable and unimportant NASA doctor on a trip of significant political and scientific import(we were the first official visitors permitted into Star City and Russian Mission Control). Of course the Soviets assumed I was a CIA operative.
Naiive as I was, this explanation did not occur to me until it became obvious that one of the young men "assigned" to our group began to take a special interest in me (I guess it wasn't my great beauty or wit that charmed him). At a reception at the Embassy in Moscow, he danced with me, inviting me to secretly accompany him to a dacha not far from Moscow. He asked me a lot of questions and fortunately I was able to readily figure out what was going on (the embassy officials were kind enough to help me out in this regard!) I managed not to divulge any state secrets, but became interesting to the CIA upon my return to the states.
Some years later I returned to the USSR, when they were in the midst of their Afghanistan adventure and stimulated even greater interests in my Russian hosts who invited me to stay beyond the "official" visit I was on (a visa extension was hurridly arranged while on an airplane from Tashkent to Moscow--so that tells you something); and I was then wined and dined by two young gentlemen in an exclusive restaurant near Red Square. When we were all very very drunk, they casually admitted to me that they were KGB and wouldn't I pretty please give them some little tidbit for their masters. I taught them the Wizard of Oz song "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" as we linked arms and danced through an empty Red Square at 2:00 AM. Needless to say, the CIA were very interested in my impressions then, also. It was not long after this last fiasco, that the Soviet Union crumbled (and I assure you, I had nothing to do with it, although the decline of American intelligence probably began with my escapades!)
So ended my career as a not so covert espionage agent. My excitement at all of this attention from both the KGB and the CIA was probably mediated by my love of spy novels and my tendency to occasionally indulge in melodrama (my "histrionic" qualities, if you want the psychiatric term).
But since that time in my life I have been intently interested in the workings of the Intelligence community, and am not surprised in the least at what has been going on in the CIA for the last 15 years or so.
Sad, isn't it, that the superhero spys of Clancy and other writers are just figments of an overactive imagination?
Schoenfeld cites two works by former CIA personnel in his discussion. The first is the widely acclaimed "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (better known as Michael Scheuer) and the second is Melissa Boyle Mahle, author of "Denial and Deception."
Here is a sample comment or two about the first author by Schoenfeld:
Sentiments like these mark the author of "Imperial Hubris" as something of a political hybrid--a cross, not to put too fine a point on it, between an overwrought Buchananite and a raving Chomskyite. This alone, one might think, should have unfitted him for a high position of trust within the CIA. But that is not the end of it. Even as he lambastes the U.S. from his isolationist position, reserving special fury not only for America's alliance with Israel but for our "hallucinatory crusade for democracy," Mr. Scheuer also swivels to assail Washington for being insufficiently hawkish in waging the war on terror.
"An Unprepared and Ignorant Lunge to Defeat" is how Mr. Scheuer titles his chapter on Afghanistan. What appears to exercise him most is the fact that after September 11, the U.S. waited almost a month to respond to al Qaeda's attacks.
and:
All of which leaves only two questions. How did a person of such demonstrable mediocrity of mind and unhinged views achieve the rank he did in the CIA, and how could so manifestly wayward and damaging a work have been published by someone in the agency's employ? To the second question, at least, an answer of a sort is ready to hand, if one that raises disturbing questions of its own.
Of the emphasis during the Clinton administration on Affirmative Action at the CIA combined with the desire for it to maintain a "risk-averse" position vis a vis the White House (as documented in Denial and Deception" )Schoenfeld writes:
Today, after more than a decade of submission to this powerful tool, CIA employees can take pride in being part of a very inclusive institution indeed. One measure of this, as the agency itself boasts on its Web site, is the number of "affinity groups" it supports within its ranks. There is, for example, the Asian Pacific American Organization, which "assists in recruiting, mentoring, counseling, and monitoring the advancement of Asian American officers to insure that equity is occurring." The Black Executive Board functions to advance the "multicultural environment" and provides guidance "to senior management on all matters affecting recruiting, hiring, retention, networking, assignments, promotions, and career development opportunities." The Hispanic Advisory Council "provides input" on Hispanic issues, while the Native American Council serves as "a champion of diversity in the [CIA] workplace." There is also ANGLE, the Agency Network for Gay and Lesbian Employees, which is "geared toward fostering the principles of diversity and creating opportunities" for the agency's "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered employees."
These, then, have been the fruits of an effort going back well over a decade and consuming a large quotient of the agency's senior-level attention--the same period in which al Qaeda was gathering force and training thousands of Islamists, and when the CIA's overriding need, conspicuously unmet all those years, was the hiring of more officers capable of speaking and reading Arabic.
What it boils down to is that our major intelligence agency became a showcase for the government's affirmative action policies at the expense of actually doing the real intelligence work that might have prepared us for 9/11 and the rise of Islamofascism.
Of course, the decline of the CIA was multifactorial. But the primary rot can be traced to a decade old quest for mediocrity, incompetence and conformity to political correctness. Read the entire article.
Now a confession of sorts. When I first read the Gabriel Schoenfeld article it rekindled memories of my dealings with the CIA while a flight surgeon at NASA. It happened that I was fortunate enough to be one of the people invited on a trip in 1985 to the Soviet Union (the height of the Cold War). It was just after I had been the crew surgeon for a secret DoD space mission. Little did I realize that my participation in that mission was noticed by the Soviet authorities, who could not explain the presence of an otherwise unremarkable and unimportant NASA doctor on a trip of significant political and scientific import(we were the first official visitors permitted into Star City and Russian Mission Control). Of course the Soviets assumed I was a CIA operative.
Naiive as I was, this explanation did not occur to me until it became obvious that one of the young men "assigned" to our group began to take a special interest in me (I guess it wasn't my great beauty or wit that charmed him). At a reception at the Embassy in Moscow, he danced with me, inviting me to secretly accompany him to a dacha not far from Moscow. He asked me a lot of questions and fortunately I was able to readily figure out what was going on (the embassy officials were kind enough to help me out in this regard!) I managed not to divulge any state secrets, but became interesting to the CIA upon my return to the states.
Some years later I returned to the USSR, when they were in the midst of their Afghanistan adventure and stimulated even greater interests in my Russian hosts who invited me to stay beyond the "official" visit I was on (a visa extension was hurridly arranged while on an airplane from Tashkent to Moscow--so that tells you something); and I was then wined and dined by two young gentlemen in an exclusive restaurant near Red Square. When we were all very very drunk, they casually admitted to me that they were KGB and wouldn't I pretty please give them some little tidbit for their masters. I taught them the Wizard of Oz song "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" as we linked arms and danced through an empty Red Square at 2:00 AM. Needless to say, the CIA were very interested in my impressions then, also. It was not long after this last fiasco, that the Soviet Union crumbled (and I assure you, I had nothing to do with it, although the decline of American intelligence probably began with my escapades!)
So ended my career as a not so covert espionage agent. My excitement at all of this attention from both the KGB and the CIA was probably mediated by my love of spy novels and my tendency to occasionally indulge in melodrama (my "histrionic" qualities, if you want the psychiatric term).
But since that time in my life I have been intently interested in the workings of the Intelligence community, and am not surprised in the least at what has been going on in the CIA for the last 15 years or so.
Sad, isn't it, that the superhero spys of Clancy and other writers are just figments of an overactive imagination?
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The Democrats' Dilemma
Here it is, encapsulated in an interview by Jon Stewart with Nancy Soderberg, as transcribed by James Taranto.
So, what are they? Democrats? Or, Americans?
So, what are they? Democrats? Or, Americans?
The Immigration Issue - My Two Cents
There is a lot of debate right now about the problem of Immigration, especially in the time of terrorism. Michele Malkin has written extensively on this (here, here, here) and recently Polipundit has proposed several recommendations. Frank at Now You Know has written several posts (here and here) that put forth a first-hand perspective on the problems of Immigration from someone who lives near the Arizona border.
Being the grandaughter of two sets of immigrants (both my father's parents and my mother's came to this country in the early 1900's from Italy), I have some strong feelings about immigration policy.
The poem by Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty expresses these feelings:
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
This poem lyrically communicates one of the oldest and most deeply-felt American values. Most Americans, like myself, have ancestors that came to this shore seeking freedom from oppression, and a new chance at life. America has always opened her arms and welcomed them. And we are a strong and vibrant country because of it.
The recent introduction into the politically correct lexicon of "multicultural" is, I feel, a perversion of the message on the Statue. There is, of course, nothing intrinsically negative to valuing and treasuring, and even maintaining one's cultural heritage--as I and my family still do. But the implication of the multicultural gurus is that every culture; every tradition is morally, politically, economically, socially, aesthetically, and in every other way equivalent to American culture.
I do not think that perspective is entirely true. The implication of the "diversity" divas is that diverse cultures are the strength and beauty our "national quilt". Well, yes each diverse component does contribute. But it is the overall quilt itself that is the desired result. It is the quilt's entire design that determines its beauty, meaning, and utility. A quilt is a fabric design made by cutting shapes from one or more fabrics and sewing them on top of another piece of fabric. In America we have made a "crazy quilt" comprised of the members of every national, ethnic, religious and racial group on the planet. The "batting" and "bindings" of the quilt are what pull the individual blocks together into its overall pattern. No one block determines the overall pattern and each block is subsumed into the pattern.
I have no problem with natives of say, Turkey, or Haiti, or China saying that their cultural beliefs are better than America's. That is their perogative--I don't agree with them--but they are entitled to their opinion. But if the culture is so excellent--why are people coming to the U.S. to live? If they are not open to another culture and accepting that other culture's values and goals, why come here? In other words, the immigrant--by the viture of the fact of their immigration is acknowledging the superior qualities of the country he or she immigrates to--or why immigrate? Becoming a citizen of this country presupposes that you accept those values and are no longer a Turk, Haitian, or Chinese--but now an American. If you abhor American values, why immigrate here?
Now that I have expressed my feelings --which you may or may not agree with--I'd like to address the very real problem that every free country has: how do you control your borders with the intent of "providing for the common defense" while at the same time asking the world to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? You will notice that this question is very similar to one previously discussed here . That is because the basic premises and the underlying values are identical.
It seems reasonable to me that the solution to this problem is also similar; and that there should be a re-examination and re-evaluation of all of our current Immigration Policies with the idea of maintaining our basic values, but making it harder for those who wish to do us real harm to enter our borders unhindered. There is room for compromise between having a totally open border and its opposite--a border that is completely closed to all but a few elites.
I would propose that there be a moratorium on legal immigration for a period of time (perhaps 6 months to 1 year); as well as resolute enforcement of all current laws concerning both illegal and legal immigration; while all issues,problems, laws, and proposals are on the table and discussed in the context of a war on terror. At NASA, we used to have what was called a "Tiger Team" which was a group put together to address a high priority problem and make recommendations for its solution, both short and long-term. This would be a much better way to go than the usual "congressional hearings" BS, where partisan hacks can frolic unhindered.
I don't have all the solutions and I doubt that even a "Tiger Team" would be able to come up with a plan that would please everyone. But this is a very high-priority issue and it should be addressed seriously now, before our current policy failures contribute to the next 9/11-style attack within our country.
All I know for sure is that we must come up with strategies that are consistent with our values; and at the same time offer real security to American citizens during the difficult years ahead.
Being the grandaughter of two sets of immigrants (both my father's parents and my mother's came to this country in the early 1900's from Italy), I have some strong feelings about immigration policy.
The poem by Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty expresses these feelings:
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
This poem lyrically communicates one of the oldest and most deeply-felt American values. Most Americans, like myself, have ancestors that came to this shore seeking freedom from oppression, and a new chance at life. America has always opened her arms and welcomed them. And we are a strong and vibrant country because of it.
The recent introduction into the politically correct lexicon of "multicultural" is, I feel, a perversion of the message on the Statue. There is, of course, nothing intrinsically negative to valuing and treasuring, and even maintaining one's cultural heritage--as I and my family still do. But the implication of the multicultural gurus is that every culture; every tradition is morally, politically, economically, socially, aesthetically, and in every other way equivalent to American culture.
I do not think that perspective is entirely true. The implication of the "diversity" divas is that diverse cultures are the strength and beauty our "national quilt". Well, yes each diverse component does contribute. But it is the overall quilt itself that is the desired result. It is the quilt's entire design that determines its beauty, meaning, and utility. A quilt is a fabric design made by cutting shapes from one or more fabrics and sewing them on top of another piece of fabric. In America we have made a "crazy quilt" comprised of the members of every national, ethnic, religious and racial group on the planet. The "batting" and "bindings" of the quilt are what pull the individual blocks together into its overall pattern. No one block determines the overall pattern and each block is subsumed into the pattern.
I have no problem with natives of say, Turkey, or Haiti, or China saying that their cultural beliefs are better than America's. That is their perogative--I don't agree with them--but they are entitled to their opinion. But if the culture is so excellent--why are people coming to the U.S. to live? If they are not open to another culture and accepting that other culture's values and goals, why come here? In other words, the immigrant--by the viture of the fact of their immigration is acknowledging the superior qualities of the country he or she immigrates to--or why immigrate? Becoming a citizen of this country presupposes that you accept those values and are no longer a Turk, Haitian, or Chinese--but now an American. If you abhor American values, why immigrate here?
Now that I have expressed my feelings --which you may or may not agree with--I'd like to address the very real problem that every free country has: how do you control your borders with the intent of "providing for the common defense" while at the same time asking the world to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? You will notice that this question is very similar to one previously discussed here . That is because the basic premises and the underlying values are identical.
It seems reasonable to me that the solution to this problem is also similar; and that there should be a re-examination and re-evaluation of all of our current Immigration Policies with the idea of maintaining our basic values, but making it harder for those who wish to do us real harm to enter our borders unhindered. There is room for compromise between having a totally open border and its opposite--a border that is completely closed to all but a few elites.
I would propose that there be a moratorium on legal immigration for a period of time (perhaps 6 months to 1 year); as well as resolute enforcement of all current laws concerning both illegal and legal immigration; while all issues,problems, laws, and proposals are on the table and discussed in the context of a war on terror. At NASA, we used to have what was called a "Tiger Team" which was a group put together to address a high priority problem and make recommendations for its solution, both short and long-term. This would be a much better way to go than the usual "congressional hearings" BS, where partisan hacks can frolic unhindered.
I don't have all the solutions and I doubt that even a "Tiger Team" would be able to come up with a plan that would please everyone. But this is a very high-priority issue and it should be addressed seriously now, before our current policy failures contribute to the next 9/11-style attack within our country.
All I know for sure is that we must come up with strategies that are consistent with our values; and at the same time offer real security to American citizens during the difficult years ahead.
Iwo Jima and Iraq
Vodkapundit compares Iwo Jima to Iraq, with some surprising conclusions (well, not to me, but probably to some!)
The battle for Iwo was one of the toughest in the entire Pacific Campaign. 70,000 Marines invaded, 6,821 of whom never came home. An additional 19,217 were wounded, and 2,648 suffered combat fatigue. All in just five weeks of fighting.
The battle for Iraq continues, but the results aren't nearly so bad. To date, about 1,400 killed and 10,000 wounded in just less than two years of fighting.
But Iraq and Iwo Jima still have a lot in common – and more than might be obvious even to the serious student of history. To see at long last what I mean, let's look at the critiques.
There's a strong chance that invading Iwo was a mistake. We didn't need it as a forward staging area for Operation Olympic. Iwo didn't control some resource vital to Hirohito's war machine. In fact, we invaded Iwo Jima and sacrificed nearly 7,000 lives for… an emergency airbase.
That's right. All of that effort, all of those injuries, all of those lives, just so that bomber crews might have a safe place to put down in case of emergency. I don't mean to say Iwo wasn't necessarily worth it. Every airman who found refuge there owed a debt of honor to the Marines who died there. And the propaganda value of the famous flag-raising on Iwo was priceless.
Read on.
The battle for Iwo was one of the toughest in the entire Pacific Campaign. 70,000 Marines invaded, 6,821 of whom never came home. An additional 19,217 were wounded, and 2,648 suffered combat fatigue. All in just five weeks of fighting.
The battle for Iraq continues, but the results aren't nearly so bad. To date, about 1,400 killed and 10,000 wounded in just less than two years of fighting.
But Iraq and Iwo Jima still have a lot in common – and more than might be obvious even to the serious student of history. To see at long last what I mean, let's look at the critiques.
There's a strong chance that invading Iwo was a mistake. We didn't need it as a forward staging area for Operation Olympic. Iwo didn't control some resource vital to Hirohito's war machine. In fact, we invaded Iwo Jima and sacrificed nearly 7,000 lives for… an emergency airbase.
That's right. All of that effort, all of those injuries, all of those lives, just so that bomber crews might have a safe place to put down in case of emergency. I don't mean to say Iwo wasn't necessarily worth it. Every airman who found refuge there owed a debt of honor to the Marines who died there. And the propaganda value of the famous flag-raising on Iwo was priceless.
Read on.
A Genuine King
Although my own pretensions were dashed last week, there is another set of pretenders to the crown that is now held by Jeremy at American Warmonger ! I have to say that Jeremy is definitely a prince of a guy, a king among men, and that I plan to vote for him as often as possible.
He is the one who has been working on my template (taking time out of his kingly duties, I might add) so the least I can do is be a loyal subject!
Vote for Jeremy over at the King of the Blogs.
He is the one who has been working on my template (taking time out of his kingly duties, I might add) so the least I can do is be a loyal subject!
Vote for Jeremy over at the King of the Blogs.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Another Great Blog Design!
Greetings! This is Jeremy from American Warmonger. I have redesigned the good doctor's website. Her haloscan commenting will return shortly. If you like the design I can do the same for you. All you have to do is ask.
This has been a commercial from the American Warmonger.
We now return you to your regular blogging.
This has been a commercial from the American Warmonger.
We now return you to your regular blogging.
A New Clarity For Some, Wishful Thinking For Others
New Sysiphus :
You know the script, you've seen it all before. There is a tenuous cease-fire in place between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Then, there is a suicide bombing. Israel demands that the Palestinians live up to their obligations and stop them and stop those responsible. No one backs Israel up. Israel is accused of being "unreasonable." The Palestinians dissemble, disclaiming responsibility and, at the same time, claim they are powerless. The peace process breaks down. It's Israel's fault. And so it goes.
No longer.
I bet you are.
Imagine the shocked look on this Palestinian's face when he was informed that the old game is up and it's time, finally time, for the Palis to put up or shut up.
Today's unanimous Quartet declaration is even more evidence that the President's foreign policy has carried the day and a new clarity is coming into focus with regard to Middle Eastern affairs. (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile, those who are completely UNCLEAR continue to dismiss, deny, denigrate and laugh at the obvious conclusion that Bush (yes, that "Chimpy Bushitler" that they are all so fond of)and his foreign policy have caused this to happen. Here's one sample: (hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)
This Leftist Talking Point is being echoed ad nauseum (even on this blog):
Hugh Hewitt points out that
By citing to Reagan, Kilgore demonstrates that he wouldn't accept even "specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders) that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon," because he won't accept specific evidence from Eastern European leaders that Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union
In other words, there is nothing that will convince these people that the ideas and principles that Bush elucidates to this day; that directed his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq; had anything whatsoever to do with the wave of democracy sweeping the region that they, themselves believed was immune to democratic processes. What a hoot!
This is not merely denial on their part, but a pervasive, almost desperate denial.
Just consider why they are so desperate: if IDEAS and PRINCIPLES really can have such a profound impact on BEHAVIOR--then what does that say about their ideas and principles???
I suggest the Left begin to re-assess what they are "thinking" (in psychiatry, we refer to it as "wishful thinking"). It is apparent that this "new clarity" doesn't apply to them or their highly emotional wishes.
You know the script, you've seen it all before. There is a tenuous cease-fire in place between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Then, there is a suicide bombing. Israel demands that the Palestinians live up to their obligations and stop them and stop those responsible. No one backs Israel up. Israel is accused of being "unreasonable." The Palestinians dissemble, disclaiming responsibility and, at the same time, claim they are powerless. The peace process breaks down. It's Israel's fault. And so it goes.
No longer.
LONDON (Reuters) - World powers on Tuesday demanded immediate Palestinian action to catch those behind a Tel Aviv suicide bombing that broke a fragile ceasefire with Israel.
Palestinians responded angrily to the statement by the Middle East quartet comprising the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States, while Israel complained that Palestinians were failing to confront militant groups.
The quartet met on the sidelines of a London meeting on Palestinian reform hosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and clouded by Friday's suicide bombing of a Tel Aviv nightclub, in which five people were killed.
The group called for "immediate action by the Palestinian Authority to apprehend and bring to justice the perpetrators" and demanded "further and sustained action" against terrorism.
"We are very upset at the quartet statement," said a Palestinian official who asked not to be identified.
I bet you are.
Imagine the shocked look on this Palestinian's face when he was informed that the old game is up and it's time, finally time, for the Palis to put up or shut up.
Today's unanimous Quartet declaration is even more evidence that the President's foreign policy has carried the day and a new clarity is coming into focus with regard to Middle Eastern affairs. (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile, those who are completely UNCLEAR continue to dismiss, deny, denigrate and laugh at the obvious conclusion that Bush (yes, that "Chimpy Bushitler" that they are all so fond of)and his foreign policy have caused this to happen. Here's one sample: (hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)
But it literally never crossed my mind that Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.
This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It's the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy. This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch--even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies. Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders)that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.
Let us congratulate the Lebanese, not those in Washington who would take credit for their accomplishments.
This Leftist Talking Point is being echoed ad nauseum (even on this blog):
If you are going to credit him with all of this then you need to credit him with the disasters as well. As far as the chimpster going down in history as a great president...let's give it a few years and see what comes out THEN we can put him in his rightful place.
Hugh Hewitt points out that
By citing to Reagan, Kilgore demonstrates that he wouldn't accept even "specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders) that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon," because he won't accept specific evidence from Eastern European leaders that Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union
In other words, there is nothing that will convince these people that the ideas and principles that Bush elucidates to this day; that directed his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq; had anything whatsoever to do with the wave of democracy sweeping the region that they, themselves believed was immune to democratic processes. What a hoot!
This is not merely denial on their part, but a pervasive, almost desperate denial.
Just consider why they are so desperate: if IDEAS and PRINCIPLES really can have such a profound impact on BEHAVIOR--then what does that say about their ideas and principles???
I suggest the Left begin to re-assess what they are "thinking" (in psychiatry, we refer to it as "wishful thinking"). It is apparent that this "new clarity" doesn't apply to them or their highly emotional wishes.
Paranoia in Politics - Several Primers
I thought I'd refer my readers to two excellent books that practically define the discussion of paranoia in politics; and one that discusses psychological defense mechanisms in general.
The first is the classic essay by Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style In American Politics" which can be found in the book of the same name.
The main essay in this book was based on a lecture delivered at Oxford University in 1963. Hofstadter says:
I call it the paranoid style because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness or conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression "paranoid style," I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes.
Hofstadter's gives an historical perspective of paranoia in politics. This "style" is characterized by "the feeling of persecution as central, and it is indeed systematized in the form of grandiose theories of conspiracy." Hofstadter separates groups that entertain the paranoid style (and maintain that the "conspiracy" is against the nation, or culture and not any one individual personally; and individuals who have the paranoid style. Hofstadter believes that groups with this style appear more rational and disinterested to the observer than an individual with the style would. The former can appeal to unselfish patriotism and express moral indignation, while the latter cannot.
Having lived through the days when it was the Right that exemplified the classic paranoid stance (e.g., remember Joe McCarthy? or the John Birch Society?), I have no compunction in saying that the pendulum has shifted with the tides of political fortune. As the Right (e.g., the Republicans) gained more and more political power in the 80's and 90's (despite a brief interval when Bill Clinton and the Democrats were in charge), the paranoia that had once been so prominent on the Right passed into the minds of the newly powerless--the Democrats and the Left. The emergence of organizations like Moveon.org and the mainstreaming of personalities like Michael Moore and other extreme Leftists, enabled the conspiracy theories to begin to blossom in full bloom from that side of the political spectrum.
There is a nice essay in the Weekly Standard by one of the bloggers at Power Line that discusses Hofstadter's book and its relevance to the political situation today.
This kind of paranoid style has always and will always exist in politics, particularly among those groups and individuals who feel disenfranchised or marginalized in the political power heirarchy.
Paranoia remains a frequent--albeit infantile--method to psychologically cope with feelings of impotence, rage, and marginalization. Denial, projection and displacement also are common; and without the intervention of rational thought and a modicum of psychological insight, it can be extremely distructive to a rational discussion of important issues on a national level.
The second must-have book to understand paranoid psychopathology in politics is Robert Robins and Jerrold Post's Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred.
Robins and Post deal in detail with the psychopathological mechanisms that underlie the paranoid in politics. They offer several case studies, including one of Richard Nixon (probably one of the more paranoid presidents in recent times) and Oliver Stone as well as evaluations of such tyrants as Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot,Idi Amin, and Hitler.
Finally, a third book that I believe is extremely useful in understanding the "tools" of the paranoid, i.e., the psychological mechanisms of denial, projection, distortion, and displacement that are essential for the developement of scapegoating and conspiracy theories; is a more general classic by George Vaillant, Adaptation to Life .
In this wonderful and readable book you will find extensive discussion of all the psychological defense mechanisms--both healthy and unhealthy--and how people use them in their everyday life.
It is important to remember that any of these psychological processes--paranoia, projection, denial, distortion--can be used by anyone, regardless of where they may be on the political spectrum. Understanding the psychological process of defense mechanisms and the reasons why people choose paranoia, denial and other infantile defenses --instead of ones that are more productive and healthy--goes a long way to developing strategies for countering them when you have to deal with their consequences in public life.
At the present time, the Left (especially more moderate Democrats) would do well to carefully reconsider their paranoid stance. In my personal opinion (which you can take or leave as you wish) the Democratic party has been hijacked by extremists who --in spite of what they say--care very little for the health of their country and would rather it be destroyed--than abandon their feelings, and re-examine their ideological premises. A little psychological insight would go a long way here.
The first is the classic essay by Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style In American Politics" which can be found in the book of the same name.
The main essay in this book was based on a lecture delivered at Oxford University in 1963. Hofstadter says:
I call it the paranoid style because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness or conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression "paranoid style," I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes.
Hofstadter's gives an historical perspective of paranoia in politics. This "style" is characterized by "the feeling of persecution as central, and it is indeed systematized in the form of grandiose theories of conspiracy." Hofstadter separates groups that entertain the paranoid style (and maintain that the "conspiracy" is against the nation, or culture and not any one individual personally; and individuals who have the paranoid style. Hofstadter believes that groups with this style appear more rational and disinterested to the observer than an individual with the style would. The former can appeal to unselfish patriotism and express moral indignation, while the latter cannot.
Having lived through the days when it was the Right that exemplified the classic paranoid stance (e.g., remember Joe McCarthy? or the John Birch Society?), I have no compunction in saying that the pendulum has shifted with the tides of political fortune. As the Right (e.g., the Republicans) gained more and more political power in the 80's and 90's (despite a brief interval when Bill Clinton and the Democrats were in charge), the paranoia that had once been so prominent on the Right passed into the minds of the newly powerless--the Democrats and the Left. The emergence of organizations like Moveon.org and the mainstreaming of personalities like Michael Moore and other extreme Leftists, enabled the conspiracy theories to begin to blossom in full bloom from that side of the political spectrum.
There is a nice essay in the Weekly Standard by one of the bloggers at Power Line that discusses Hofstadter's book and its relevance to the political situation today.
This kind of paranoid style has always and will always exist in politics, particularly among those groups and individuals who feel disenfranchised or marginalized in the political power heirarchy.
Paranoia remains a frequent--albeit infantile--method to psychologically cope with feelings of impotence, rage, and marginalization. Denial, projection and displacement also are common; and without the intervention of rational thought and a modicum of psychological insight, it can be extremely distructive to a rational discussion of important issues on a national level.
The second must-have book to understand paranoid psychopathology in politics is Robert Robins and Jerrold Post's Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred.
Robins and Post deal in detail with the psychopathological mechanisms that underlie the paranoid in politics. They offer several case studies, including one of Richard Nixon (probably one of the more paranoid presidents in recent times) and Oliver Stone as well as evaluations of such tyrants as Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot,Idi Amin, and Hitler.
Finally, a third book that I believe is extremely useful in understanding the "tools" of the paranoid, i.e., the psychological mechanisms of denial, projection, distortion, and displacement that are essential for the developement of scapegoating and conspiracy theories; is a more general classic by George Vaillant, Adaptation to Life .
In this wonderful and readable book you will find extensive discussion of all the psychological defense mechanisms--both healthy and unhealthy--and how people use them in their everyday life.
It is important to remember that any of these psychological processes--paranoia, projection, denial, distortion--can be used by anyone, regardless of where they may be on the political spectrum. Understanding the psychological process of defense mechanisms and the reasons why people choose paranoia, denial and other infantile defenses --instead of ones that are more productive and healthy--goes a long way to developing strategies for countering them when you have to deal with their consequences in public life.
At the present time, the Left (especially more moderate Democrats) would do well to carefully reconsider their paranoid stance. In my personal opinion (which you can take or leave as you wish) the Democratic party has been hijacked by extremists who --in spite of what they say--care very little for the health of their country and would rather it be destroyed--than abandon their feelings, and re-examine their ideological premises. A little psychological insight would go a long way here.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Dr. Sanity - An Index of "Best" Posts
When I started blogging, I never thought I had so much to say. It was my intent to post at least once a day, but soon it became so addictive that I was posting three and four times a day! My family says I need help, so I might just check myself into a 12-Step Blogging Program, but only if they have a high-speed internet connection.
Anyway, I thought I would index a few of (what I consider) my "best" posts, so that they would be indexed in one place. There is an Archive at the bottom of the left sidebar of this site, but it only has the entire month's worth of posts and they are not independently listed. However, you are welcome to browse through all my posts if you are so inclined. I hope someday to have a search feature on the site, as well as an index by post title. Someday.....
JULY
35th Anniversary of Apollo 11
AUGUST
Psychiatry 101 : Psychological Defense Mechanisms
SEPTEMBER
Optimism versus Pessimism
The Wonderful World of Denia
lHistrionics As A Determinant of National Policy
For Our Children's Children
Defenders of Truth
The Doctor is Somewhat Confused About These Memos...
It's So Unfair
Enabling Behavior For Terrorism
The "Girlie Women" of Today's Feminist Movement
A Lesson in Narcissistic Rage
OCTOBER
President Bush's Optimistic Vision
The Left's Rainbow Hypocrisy
John Kerry's World
A Short Course on How to Be A Victim
Adult Conversations
That Way Lies Madness
NOVEMBER
The Psychology of Bush Hatred
A Nuanced Meaning of Tolerance
The Psychiatric Costs of War
Liberal Groupthink
Arafat Burial Suggestion
Best of Dr. Sanity's Election Posts
DECEMBER
I Wonder...
Witchunt
Poor Man, History Has Passed Him By
Polish the Boot
JANUARY
Passive Aggressive Behavior in Response to the Iraq Elections
PIE-STUPID Syndrome
Self-Esteem is Not Necessarily Good For You
Challenger--A Flight Surgeon Remembers
They Couldn't Care Less About Freedom
Competing Inaugurals
Defending Against the Reckless Hate of Islam
WMD and Death By Chocolate Cake
The Unholy Coalition of Defeat
Concrete Thinking
Dedicated to Darkness
Suicide is Painless
A Fable with a Moral
FEBRUARY
"Rational" Discourse on the Left
Protect and Defend
Paranoia Strikes Deep
More Paranoia on the Left
He Feels It Is True, Therefore It Is...
9/11 and Paranoia
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lynne Stewart?
Death By Chocolate Cake (Without WMDs) - A Recipe
Mars Doesn't Need Women
Piano Repairmen
Suicide and Its Nuances
A Classic Case of Hysteria
Yes, This is Islam
Ayn Rand and Me
DR. SANITY'S SONG RIP-OFFS (Gilbert and Sullivan, Monty Python and Others shamelessly stolen to make a political point!)
Cole's A Lumberjack
50 Ways to Force Regime Change
The Great UN Pretender
American Pie - The Democrat Version
Come Back When You Grow Up
Delicious Blasphemy (The Taliban Rag)
The Pirates of the U.N.
Anyway, I thought I would index a few of (what I consider) my "best" posts, so that they would be indexed in one place. There is an Archive at the bottom of the left sidebar of this site, but it only has the entire month's worth of posts and they are not independently listed. However, you are welcome to browse through all my posts if you are so inclined. I hope someday to have a search feature on the site, as well as an index by post title. Someday.....
JULY
35th Anniversary of Apollo 11
AUGUST
Psychiatry 101 : Psychological Defense Mechanisms
SEPTEMBER
Optimism versus Pessimism
The Wonderful World of Denia
lHistrionics As A Determinant of National Policy
For Our Children's Children
Defenders of Truth
The Doctor is Somewhat Confused About These Memos...
It's So Unfair
Enabling Behavior For Terrorism
The "Girlie Women" of Today's Feminist Movement
A Lesson in Narcissistic Rage
OCTOBER
President Bush's Optimistic Vision
The Left's Rainbow Hypocrisy
John Kerry's World
A Short Course on How to Be A Victim
Adult Conversations
That Way Lies Madness
NOVEMBER
The Psychology of Bush Hatred
A Nuanced Meaning of Tolerance
The Psychiatric Costs of War
Liberal Groupthink
Arafat Burial Suggestion
Best of Dr. Sanity's Election Posts
DECEMBER
I Wonder...
Witchunt
Poor Man, History Has Passed Him By
Polish the Boot
JANUARY
Passive Aggressive Behavior in Response to the Iraq Elections
PIE-STUPID Syndrome
Self-Esteem is Not Necessarily Good For You
Challenger--A Flight Surgeon Remembers
They Couldn't Care Less About Freedom
Competing Inaugurals
Defending Against the Reckless Hate of Islam
WMD and Death By Chocolate Cake
The Unholy Coalition of Defeat
Concrete Thinking
Dedicated to Darkness
Suicide is Painless
A Fable with a Moral
FEBRUARY
"Rational" Discourse on the Left
Protect and Defend
Paranoia Strikes Deep
More Paranoia on the Left
He Feels It Is True, Therefore It Is...
9/11 and Paranoia
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lynne Stewart?
Death By Chocolate Cake (Without WMDs) - A Recipe
Mars Doesn't Need Women
Piano Repairmen
Suicide and Its Nuances
A Classic Case of Hysteria
Yes, This is Islam
Ayn Rand and Me
DR. SANITY'S SONG RIP-OFFS (Gilbert and Sullivan, Monty Python and Others shamelessly stolen to make a political point!)
Cole's A Lumberjack
50 Ways to Force Regime Change
The Great UN Pretender
American Pie - The Democrat Version
Come Back When You Grow Up
Delicious Blasphemy (The Taliban Rag)
The Pirates of the U.N.
Who'd A Thunk It?
UNBELIEVABLE!
For those who doubted that engaging the enemy on his ground by bringing about regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq was the right thing to do--JUST LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING!
What a terrible blow to the Left, who would like to maintain the delusion that Bush and his administration are stupid, unprincipled, and dangerous (just as they did with Reagan until recently). But the whirlwind changes for the Good happening in the Middle East and elsewhere speak for themselves. The only ones who could grieve about these changes are the Islamofascist terrorists, who unwittingly unleashed the forces that are transforming the world.
The road to Freedom is not always smooth, and there will be many bumps ahead. Syria and Iran will most certainly not give up their oppression and despotism easily, but there is reason to be optimistic after all of the above. But what has already occurred is HUGE and represents an UNDENIABLE victory for Freedom and the human spirit. I wish I could be around 50 - 75 years from now to see these seeds come to fruition.
Who'd a thunk it?
For those who doubted that engaging the enemy on his ground by bringing about regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq was the right thing to do--JUST LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING!
- Afghanistan had free and democratic elections despite the threat of violence.
- Iraq had free and democratic elections despite the threat of violence
- Libya has given up its desire for WMD
- Palestine has had free elections (of a sort anyway)
- Ukraine citizens took to the streets and changed their government peacefully
- Saudi Arabia has held open municipal elections and some modest reforms (still a long way to go, however)
- Egypt has announced some democratic reforms and open elections
- Syria suddenly hands over Saddam's brother and 29 Ba'athists to the Iraqis
- And today, Lebanon's government has resigned to the cheering thousands of Lebanese in the streets of Beirut who are demanding freedom
What a terrible blow to the Left, who would like to maintain the delusion that Bush and his administration are stupid, unprincipled, and dangerous (just as they did with Reagan until recently). But the whirlwind changes for the Good happening in the Middle East and elsewhere speak for themselves. The only ones who could grieve about these changes are the Islamofascist terrorists, who unwittingly unleashed the forces that are transforming the world.
The road to Freedom is not always smooth, and there will be many bumps ahead. Syria and Iran will most certainly not give up their oppression and despotism easily, but there is reason to be optimistic after all of the above. But what has already occurred is HUGE and represents an UNDENIABLE victory for Freedom and the human spirit. I wish I could be around 50 - 75 years from now to see these seeds come to fruition.
Who'd a thunk it?
Daniel in Jabba's Palace
Captain Ed at Captains Quarters reports that Israel is going on the offensive at the UN and intends to try to get the Security Council to condemn the recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.
Israel plans on doing something rather remarkable today, an act of faith that has echoes of Daniel in the lion's den. Israel will request that the United Nations Security Council condemn the terrorist bombing that killed four people in Tel Aviv this weekend and demand that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist groups operating in its territories as a prerequisite to further negotiations on autonomy:
After watching Israel make concession after concession in the Peace Negotiations with the Palestinians, how can there be any doubt that they truly desire peace? After watching every concession and conciliatory gesture be greeted with yet another round of murderous insanity on the part of the Islamic terrorist group du jour, how can there be any doubt that they could care less about peace?
Personally, I happen to think that the UN is a corrupt, bureaucratic mess that stands firmly behind every dictator and thug on the planet. As these super diplomats sit back and issue mild rebukes while genocide is taking place in Darfur; as they count their hard-earned bribes, it is impossible to understand why anyone--let alone the usual UN whipping boy, Israel--would seek some sort of moral sanction from this august body. It is likely to be a complete waste of Israel's time --whatever the result.
This is hardly "Daniel in the Lion's Den". "Daniel in Jabba's Palace" seems closer to the mark.
Israel plans on doing something rather remarkable today, an act of faith that has echoes of Daniel in the lion's den. Israel will request that the United Nations Security Council condemn the terrorist bombing that killed four people in Tel Aviv this weekend and demand that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist groups operating in its territories as a prerequisite to further negotiations on autonomy:
After watching Israel make concession after concession in the Peace Negotiations with the Palestinians, how can there be any doubt that they truly desire peace? After watching every concession and conciliatory gesture be greeted with yet another round of murderous insanity on the part of the Islamic terrorist group du jour, how can there be any doubt that they could care less about peace?
Personally, I happen to think that the UN is a corrupt, bureaucratic mess that stands firmly behind every dictator and thug on the planet. As these super diplomats sit back and issue mild rebukes while genocide is taking place in Darfur; as they count their hard-earned bribes, it is impossible to understand why anyone--let alone the usual UN whipping boy, Israel--would seek some sort of moral sanction from this august body. It is likely to be a complete waste of Israel's time --whatever the result.
This is hardly "Daniel in the Lion's Den". "Daniel in Jabba's Palace" seems closer to the mark.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
The Sounds of Silence
One of the tragic consequences of moral and cultural relativism: "How Many More Women Have To Die Before This Society Wakes Up?" An excerpt: (but read the entire article)
The five Muslim women killed in recent months were murdered by their husbands or partners because they had "insulted" the family honour by wanting to end the relationship.
One woman was strangled; another drowned in a bath. In another case, a 21-year-old Turkish woman who was forcibly married to her cousin was stabbed to death on the street by her husband in front of their three-year-old daughter. Police records show that 45 "honour killings" have been committed within Germany's two million-plus Muslim community in the past eight years. Now that at least five have occurred in just four months in Berlin alone, the German authorities and local Turkish leaders are desperately trying to find out why.
Karl Mollenhauer, a Berlin police psychologist, blamed Islamic religious leaders for failing to address the problem. Last week, he also suggested that the German authorities were at fault for failing to intervene in case they were branded racist.
"We have silently allowed a parallel society to develop because of fears that we would sow hatred by talking openly about its injustices. The women have paid the price for this," he said.
Such are the consequences of an ideology that grants moral equivalence to cultures that celebrate death with cultures embracing life. This politically correct silence that refuses to condemn and root out culturally-sanctioned murder for fear of being labeled "racist", is itself a sickness that has been silently creeping into Western Civilization. A sickness that gives a moral validation to the speech and behavior of tyrants and despots, while muffling the voices of those who desire freedom.
Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence
Do not let the darkness become a friend so familiar--so numbing--that you lose your own voice.
The five Muslim women killed in recent months were murdered by their husbands or partners because they had "insulted" the family honour by wanting to end the relationship.
One woman was strangled; another drowned in a bath. In another case, a 21-year-old Turkish woman who was forcibly married to her cousin was stabbed to death on the street by her husband in front of their three-year-old daughter. Police records show that 45 "honour killings" have been committed within Germany's two million-plus Muslim community in the past eight years. Now that at least five have occurred in just four months in Berlin alone, the German authorities and local Turkish leaders are desperately trying to find out why.
Karl Mollenhauer, a Berlin police psychologist, blamed Islamic religious leaders for failing to address the problem. Last week, he also suggested that the German authorities were at fault for failing to intervene in case they were branded racist.
"We have silently allowed a parallel society to develop because of fears that we would sow hatred by talking openly about its injustices. The women have paid the price for this," he said.
Such are the consequences of an ideology that grants moral equivalence to cultures that celebrate death with cultures embracing life. This politically correct silence that refuses to condemn and root out culturally-sanctioned murder for fear of being labeled "racist", is itself a sickness that has been silently creeping into Western Civilization. A sickness that gives a moral validation to the speech and behavior of tyrants and despots, while muffling the voices of those who desire freedom.
Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence
Do not let the darkness become a friend so familiar--so numbing--that you lose your own voice.
Weekly Insanity Update
Good Sunday Morning! It's time for the weekly round-up of the insane, the ridiculous, the bizarre, and the utterly mad! Don't forget to send your entries in those categories to Dr. Sanity! Thanks to those who sent in this week. As always, there are many more insanities that went on this week than I could possibly count. But here are a few to ponder:
1. Everybody raise your hand if you've ever thought of killing him, too. Now, be honest.
2. Love letters. Who knew kids could be so cruel? Or teachers for that matter.
3. Don't you wish he'd just stop apologizing already?
4. Men, do not--I repeat, DO NOT--read this article. Freud had something to say about this, but since there are no "innate differences" between men and women (see #3 above), I'm not sure what to make of it.
5. Never in the history of the world has there been such a devilishly evil supergenius! Why, he's behind everything! (even the King of the Blogs tournament!)
6. CON Artist extraordinaire. IMHO, he deserves a "kickout" not a "buyout".
7. Boy, you just can't trust anyone with anything these days. (I don't think you'll like this one either, guys).
8. I'm sure some people think this is "cool", but I think it's rather creepy myself.
9. Rall Nonsense. Or is that redundant?
10. Will wonders never cease!
11. Still whining after all these years.
1. Everybody raise your hand if you've ever thought of killing him, too. Now, be honest.
2. Love letters. Who knew kids could be so cruel? Or teachers for that matter.
3. Don't you wish he'd just stop apologizing already?
4. Men, do not--I repeat, DO NOT--read this article. Freud had something to say about this, but since there are no "innate differences" between men and women (see #3 above), I'm not sure what to make of it.
5. Never in the history of the world has there been such a devilishly evil supergenius! Why, he's behind everything! (even the King of the Blogs tournament!)
6. CON Artist extraordinaire. IMHO, he deserves a "kickout" not a "buyout".
7. Boy, you just can't trust anyone with anything these days. (I don't think you'll like this one either, guys).
8. I'm sure some people think this is "cool", but I think it's rather creepy myself.
9. Rall Nonsense. Or is that redundant?
10. Will wonders never cease!
11. Still whining after all these years.
Results Are In!
Well it was a lot of fun! Readers got to participate in my secret fantasy of wanting to be royalty--a fantasy I've supressed ever since my Dad called me his little princess....)) But, the results are in, and American Warmonger is the new King of the Blogs!
Boy, did I get dinged for the design of my site! That seems to be the 'weakest link' in the competition on my part. I really was rather proud of the site--especially since, when I started blogging less than a year ago, I knew nothing about HTML, Templates, etc. etc. I am a bit technologically/computer impaired, and if you knew how long it took me to figure out how do do things and the number of books I had to read to be able to do a hyperlink; as well as how many times I've had to do things over again--and the number of times I screwed up my basic template--you'd understand! But hey! Blogger is free, and I'm getting what I paid for!
I want to thank all of those who voted for me and supported me with trackbacks. Especially Frank at Now You Know; Barry at The Royal Flush, Dymphna at the Gates of Vienna, ljmcinnis at R Cubed and neo at Neo-neocon. Your blogs are great! If only I had received just one more vote (Jeremy got the votes 88-87, but I won the trackbacks 7-5 ), then I would have been QUEEN!
[paranoid rant]I will lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of KARL ROVE, a subtle, Machievellian, and ruthless architect of evil; whose behind-the-scenes manipulations caused me to lose. I feel strongly that it is definitely all his fault![/paranoid rant]
Congratulations to King Jeremy of American Warmonger, who won fair and square. He'll make a great King!
Boy, did I get dinged for the design of my site! That seems to be the 'weakest link' in the competition on my part. I really was rather proud of the site--especially since, when I started blogging less than a year ago, I knew nothing about HTML, Templates, etc. etc. I am a bit technologically/computer impaired, and if you knew how long it took me to figure out how do do things and the number of books I had to read to be able to do a hyperlink; as well as how many times I've had to do things over again--and the number of times I screwed up my basic template--you'd understand! But hey! Blogger is free, and I'm getting what I paid for!
I want to thank all of those who voted for me and supported me with trackbacks. Especially Frank at Now You Know; Barry at The Royal Flush, Dymphna at the Gates of Vienna, ljmcinnis at R Cubed and neo at Neo-neocon. Your blogs are great! If only I had received just one more vote (Jeremy got the votes 88-87, but I won the trackbacks 7-5 ), then I would have been QUEEN!
Congratulations to King Jeremy of American Warmonger, who won fair and square. He'll make a great King!
The "Rational" Discourse of the Left
Here at Dr. Sanity's blog (at least in the comments section to this post) we can see political macrocosm in miniature: the psychological tactics of the Left --the projection, the paranoia, the denial, the intense emotion; but unfortunately, very few facts or logical argument--played out as it is in the larger world.
In a post where I quoted New Sisyphus who gave some history about legal decisions related to civil rights during wartime I said:
I must say that I could not possibly make up better evidence documenting the hysteria (noun: meaning "exaggerated emotional response") of the Left. I could not possibly have asked for better examples of projection, denial, or distortion.
I suggest that there be a rational discussion about the issue of civil liberties during war--what are the legal precedents; what are the differences between being an American citizen and not? What is the definition of "enemy combatant" and how is that different from a POW? These are all important legal questions and have everything to do with how the U.S. government will manage places like Guantanamo--and there are legal precedents that need to be looked at. John Ashcroft acted within the U.S. Law. I'm not saying I completely agree with his actions after 9/11, but he did nothing illegal; nor did he do anything that previous AG's and US government officials have not done during war. Read the link at New Sisyphus, if you would like to understand this point.
Anyway, I suggest a discussion based on differing viewpoints and possibly differing outlooks with the goal of finding some compromise that will not be "national suicide". For that suggestion, I am hit with comparisons of Nazi Germany (always a favorite of the Left to compare anything they don't like to the Nazis); accused of supporting a "war for oil"; and supporting torture.
This appears to be the Left's idea of a rational discussion. Frankly, it is cluelessness like this that permits them to support the academic freedom of Ward Churchill while denouncing Larry Summers; support peace by beating up those who support the military; scream for 'free speech', while trying to drown out any viewpoints they don't agree with; give Clinton's sexual excapades a free pass, while they focus on a nobody's private sex life as the scandal of the century; approve of Clinton's draft dodging, while denouncing Bush's TANG service; support intervention in Kosovo--where the US has NO national interests; yet fanatically oppose a war in which our national interest is paramount; state they are for 'freedom and democracy', yet desperately hope that Iraq's nacent free and democratic society fails so they can blame Bush. Shall I go on?
Oh, and here's an intelligent comment:
There is clearly some room for a discussion of how to deal with terrorists without resorting to their tactics and without commiting national suicide. But why not argue the fundamentals with Mssrs. Zarqawi, Zawahiri and Bin Laden, instead of me? It is they who seem to be unclear on the concept.
Let me thank all those who attempted to discuss this rationally in the thread. I appreciate your ideas and arguments.
I'm sure that all politically correct right-thinking Leftists will be outraged at the above arguments. They probably won't like that I have analyzed the psychological mechanisms they are using to avoid the reality of our war with Islamofascism. But, I could care less about their feelings. If they have something rational to contribute to the discussion and can do so without resorting to ad hominem attacks, I welcome the discussion. Until then, they can keep their whining to themselves.
In a post where I quoted New Sisyphus who gave some history about legal decisions related to civil rights during wartime I said:
It seems to me that a free society like ours must make some compromises with the kinds of civil liberties that are discussed above. Not to do so would be to willingly commit suicide and allow those who would destroy our liberties free reign to cynically use our own laws to forward their murderous goals.For saying that it is always useful to review and discuss issues of civil liberties in wartime, one of my commenters has this to say:
Having said that, there must always be some tension, anxiety, and free discussion whenever such powers are invoked; and it is always useful to review them to ensure that there is a balance. The key test of a free society's dedication to liberty is that such powers are easily relinquished, once the threat has passed.
Perhaps the most important function of a democratic government is to protect and defend the homeland so that we can enjoy the blessings of our freedom. Trying to balance that crucial role with maintaining those freedoms is, as New Sisyphus says, figuring out how you "wage a war for our country without losing the liberty that makes our country worth fighting for?"
Shame on you for turning your education to the service of the willfully blind and power-mad monsters ruining our country.Another one wrote in response to a third commenter who supported my view:
When Bush is given the power to lock up or kill anyone -- that word anyone includes you. Or are you above the rest of us human beings?
Consider how low you and the freaky doctor have fallen to be supporting torture and oil wars and claiming anyone who doesn't is .. what? Unamurican?This was said after he used an ad hominem attack on the third commenter, likening him a "whore" and making other vicious attacks on his personal integrity.
Jesus would slap the shit out of you.
I must say that I could not possibly make up better evidence documenting the hysteria (noun: meaning "exaggerated emotional response") of the Left. I could not possibly have asked for better examples of projection, denial, or distortion.
I suggest that there be a rational discussion about the issue of civil liberties during war--what are the legal precedents; what are the differences between being an American citizen and not? What is the definition of "enemy combatant" and how is that different from a POW? These are all important legal questions and have everything to do with how the U.S. government will manage places like Guantanamo--and there are legal precedents that need to be looked at. John Ashcroft acted within the U.S. Law. I'm not saying I completely agree with his actions after 9/11, but he did nothing illegal; nor did he do anything that previous AG's and US government officials have not done during war. Read the link at New Sisyphus, if you would like to understand this point.
Anyway, I suggest a discussion based on differing viewpoints and possibly differing outlooks with the goal of finding some compromise that will not be "national suicide". For that suggestion, I am hit with comparisons of Nazi Germany (always a favorite of the Left to compare anything they don't like to the Nazis); accused of supporting a "war for oil"; and supporting torture.
This appears to be the Left's idea of a rational discussion. Frankly, it is cluelessness like this that permits them to support the academic freedom of Ward Churchill while denouncing Larry Summers; support peace by beating up those who support the military; scream for 'free speech', while trying to drown out any viewpoints they don't agree with; give Clinton's sexual excapades a free pass, while they focus on a nobody's private sex life as the scandal of the century; approve of Clinton's draft dodging, while denouncing Bush's TANG service; support intervention in Kosovo--where the US has NO national interests; yet fanatically oppose a war in which our national interest is paramount; state they are for 'freedom and democracy', yet desperately hope that Iraq's nacent free and democratic society fails so they can blame Bush. Shall I go on?
Oh, and here's an intelligent comment:
This statement is the same type of distortion that plagues the Left. Anyone who disagrees with them are obviously "traitors" (a psychological projection--it is their own thoughts that likely dwell on betrayal). They claim that they are trying to protect freedom and reference the Declaration of Independence and Constitution when it suits their purposes. But constitutional law and the discussion of this issue go back even to those early times in our history. They who are always "nuanced" in their appreciation of Islamic fundamentalism are constitutional absolutists all of a sudden. The Declaration and the Constitution are not national suicide pacts that insist we protect the rights of people who are actively trying murder us and destroy our way of life.When you cheer for ignoring and violating our Bill of Rights, you are destroying it for your own kids and grandkids, you know. You are destroying the very idea behind America.
Our Declaration of Independence claimed all human beings have inalienable rights, and our Bill of Rights codified our citizens' rights, which are also considered inalienable.
Bush and Crew became constitutional traitors, and fifth columnists, when they broke with our Constitution, and ignored our Bill of Rights, after 9/11.
There is clearly some room for a discussion of how to deal with terrorists without resorting to their tactics and without commiting national suicide. But why not argue the fundamentals with Mssrs. Zarqawi, Zawahiri and Bin Laden, instead of me? It is they who seem to be unclear on the concept.
Let me thank all those who attempted to discuss this rationally in the thread. I appreciate your ideas and arguments.
I'm sure that all politically correct right-thinking Leftists will be outraged at the above arguments. They probably won't like that I have analyzed the psychological mechanisms they are using to avoid the reality of our war with Islamofascism. But, I could care less about their feelings. If they have something rational to contribute to the discussion and can do so without resorting to ad hominem attacks, I welcome the discussion. Until then, they can keep their whining to themselves.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
VDH - Merchants of Despair
Yesterday's Victor Davis Hanson column is a great one: "The Merchants of Despair"
Some on the hard left sought to cite our support for Israel or general "American imperialism" in the Middle East as culpable for bin Laden's wrath on September 11. Past American efforts to save Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan counted for little. Even less thanks were earned by billions of dollars given to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. The Islamofascist vision of a Dark Age world run by unelected imams — where women were in seclusion, homosexuals were killed, Jews were terrorized, Christians were routed, and freedom was squelched — registered little, even though such visions were by definition at war with all that Western liberalism stands for.
This flawed idea that autocrats supposedly hate democracy more for what it does rather than for what it represents is not new. On the eve of World War II isolationists on the right insisted that America had treated Germany unfairly after World War I and wrongly sided with British imperialism in its efforts to rub in their past defeat. "International Jewry" was blamed for poisoning the good will between the two otherwise friendly countries by demanding punitive measures from a victimized Germany. Likewise, poor Japan was supposedly unfairly cut off from American ore and petroleum, and hemmed in by provocative Anglo Americans.
By the late 1940s things had changed, and now it was the turn of the old Left, which blamed "fascists" for ruining the hallowed American-Soviet wartime alliance by "isolating" and "surrounding" the Russians with hostile bases and allies. The same was supposedly true of China: We were lectured ad nauseam by idealists and "China hands" that Mao "really" wanted to cultivate American friendship, but was spurned by our right-wing ideologues — as if there were nothing of the absolutism and innate thuggery in him that would soon account for 50 million or more murdered and starved.
Ditto the animosity from dictators like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. The Left assured us instead that both were actually neo-Jeffersonians whose olive branches were crushed by Cold Warriors, and who then — but only then — went on to plan their own gulags in Vietnam and Cuba.
The always articulate VDH is just getting started as he blasts the critics of the Iraq war. Read the entire piece.
Some on the hard left sought to cite our support for Israel or general "American imperialism" in the Middle East as culpable for bin Laden's wrath on September 11. Past American efforts to save Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan counted for little. Even less thanks were earned by billions of dollars given to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. The Islamofascist vision of a Dark Age world run by unelected imams — where women were in seclusion, homosexuals were killed, Jews were terrorized, Christians were routed, and freedom was squelched — registered little, even though such visions were by definition at war with all that Western liberalism stands for.
This flawed idea that autocrats supposedly hate democracy more for what it does rather than for what it represents is not new. On the eve of World War II isolationists on the right insisted that America had treated Germany unfairly after World War I and wrongly sided with British imperialism in its efforts to rub in their past defeat. "International Jewry" was blamed for poisoning the good will between the two otherwise friendly countries by demanding punitive measures from a victimized Germany. Likewise, poor Japan was supposedly unfairly cut off from American ore and petroleum, and hemmed in by provocative Anglo Americans.
By the late 1940s things had changed, and now it was the turn of the old Left, which blamed "fascists" for ruining the hallowed American-Soviet wartime alliance by "isolating" and "surrounding" the Russians with hostile bases and allies. The same was supposedly true of China: We were lectured ad nauseam by idealists and "China hands" that Mao "really" wanted to cultivate American friendship, but was spurned by our right-wing ideologues — as if there were nothing of the absolutism and innate thuggery in him that would soon account for 50 million or more murdered and starved.
Ditto the animosity from dictators like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. The Left assured us instead that both were actually neo-Jeffersonians whose olive branches were crushed by Cold Warriors, and who then — but only then — went on to plan their own gulags in Vietnam and Cuba.
The always articulate VDH is just getting started as he blasts the critics of the Iraq war. Read the entire piece.
All For Fun and Fun For All !
OK folks, it has come down to the wire! Get over to King of the Blogs and vote for me ONE LAST TIME! And if you can trackback on your own blog, give them one supporting me. Overnight, Jeremy pulled ahead, so I need your help.
If I win, you will all be rewarded with riches far beyond your wildest dreams!
If I lose, I will be petulant and say I didn't really want it to begin with (a strategy that my cat uses very effectively). Or, I might just blame OBL. We'll see.
If I win, you will all be rewarded with riches far beyond your wildest dreams!
If I lose, I will be petulant and say I didn't really want it to begin with (a strategy that my cat uses very effectively). Or, I might just blame OBL. We'll see.
Protect and Defend
New Sisyphus has an excellent discussion on balancing civil liberties with security needs and trying to fight a war. This was one of the more interesting parts:
Listen to a modern debate about the USA Patriot Act or of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and you’re more than likely to hear two sides talking right past each other.
The reason for this is that opponents of the President’s actions (let’s call them “civil libertarians” for short in this context) cannot conceive that the state has the authority to hold suspects for war-related activity outside of the normal criminal justice system. As the Bush Administration has successfully argued, again and again, enemy combatants, even if citizens of the United States, are simply not subject to the criminal law any more than German troops in Normandy were on D-Day.
This is why all the civil libertarian talk about jury trials, judicial review, the right to counsel and to bail and all the other normal accoutrements of modern criminal procedure is all beside the point. All those norms, as important as they are in their context, simply do not apply.
To understand why, you have to understand the story of seven devoted Nazi agents who came ashore in the dead of night in Long Island, NY, and near Jacksonville, Florida, in 1942. Their mission: to sabotage America’s war industries and transport infrastructure using any means necessary. In addition to being a devoted National Socialist, ready and willing to die for the cause, one of them, named Haupt, was also a citizen of the United States.
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 51, 87 L.Ed. 7 (1942)
The FBI quickly rounded up the Nazi agents and President Roosevelt ordered them held and tried by a special military commission. Roosevelt ordered that the jurisdiction of the new special military tribunals extended to:
"…all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals."
The agents filed a petition of habeas corpus to challenge their military detention under the military commission. The petitioners’ arguments will sound familiar to anyone who has followed the Guantanamo debate...
It seems to me that a free society like ours must make some compromises with the kinds of civil liberties that are discussed above. Not to do so would be to willingly commit suicide and allow those who would destroy our liberties free reign to cynically use our own laws to forward their murderous goals.
Having said that, there must always be some tension, anxiety, and free discussion whenever such powers are invoked; and it is always useful to review them to ensure that there is a balance. The key test of a free society's dedication to liberty is that such powers are easily relinquished, once the threat has passed.
Perhaps the most important function of a democratic government is to protect and defend the homeland so that we can enjoy the blessings of our freedom. Trying to balance that crucial role with maintaining those freedoms is, as New Sisyphus says, figuring out how you "wage a war for our country without losing the liberty that makes our country worth fighting for?"
Listen to a modern debate about the USA Patriot Act or of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and you’re more than likely to hear two sides talking right past each other.
The reason for this is that opponents of the President’s actions (let’s call them “civil libertarians” for short in this context) cannot conceive that the state has the authority to hold suspects for war-related activity outside of the normal criminal justice system. As the Bush Administration has successfully argued, again and again, enemy combatants, even if citizens of the United States, are simply not subject to the criminal law any more than German troops in Normandy were on D-Day.
This is why all the civil libertarian talk about jury trials, judicial review, the right to counsel and to bail and all the other normal accoutrements of modern criminal procedure is all beside the point. All those norms, as important as they are in their context, simply do not apply.
To understand why, you have to understand the story of seven devoted Nazi agents who came ashore in the dead of night in Long Island, NY, and near Jacksonville, Florida, in 1942. Their mission: to sabotage America’s war industries and transport infrastructure using any means necessary. In addition to being a devoted National Socialist, ready and willing to die for the cause, one of them, named Haupt, was also a citizen of the United States.
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 51, 87 L.Ed. 7 (1942)
The FBI quickly rounded up the Nazi agents and President Roosevelt ordered them held and tried by a special military commission. Roosevelt ordered that the jurisdiction of the new special military tribunals extended to:
"…all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals."
The agents filed a petition of habeas corpus to challenge their military detention under the military commission. The petitioners’ arguments will sound familiar to anyone who has followed the Guantanamo debate...
It seems to me that a free society like ours must make some compromises with the kinds of civil liberties that are discussed above. Not to do so would be to willingly commit suicide and allow those who would destroy our liberties free reign to cynically use our own laws to forward their murderous goals.
Having said that, there must always be some tension, anxiety, and free discussion whenever such powers are invoked; and it is always useful to review them to ensure that there is a balance. The key test of a free society's dedication to liberty is that such powers are easily relinquished, once the threat has passed.
Perhaps the most important function of a democratic government is to protect and defend the homeland so that we can enjoy the blessings of our freedom. Trying to balance that crucial role with maintaining those freedoms is, as New Sisyphus says, figuring out how you "wage a war for our country without losing the liberty that makes our country worth fighting for?"
Friday, February 25, 2005
Paranoia Strikes Deep
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step outta line, the men come, and take you away
-Buffalo Springfield
I know. I know. I keep writing about Paranoia and Projection (see here , here and here). But the world of Politics attracts Paranoia like flypaper attracts flies. And it is deeply disturbing to observe.
The recent multiple sitings of paranoia exhibited by the Left would be amusing, if it weren't so alarming. Between the Gannon affair (which Glenn Reynolds wraps up here rather nicely) and Mo Hinchey's ravings; between the deeply disturbed fantasies at the Democratic Underground (I won't link to them); between the gay-baiting; the paternalistic and condescending attitude towards successful Blacks and Hisanics; the Left has plummeted into a hell of their own making.
There is a reason that human beings experience suspicion, distrust and hypervigilance. That reason is because there is REAL danger in the world. Our ancestors in the caves knew this to be true. They lived with continual danger just to survive every minute of every day. Those who did not have the psychological capacity to perceive the danger in the environment surely died out long ago.
But this important psychological trait which senses danger and strives to protect the ego; and which is accentuated in children and early in life, is appropriately balanced out by the development of the rational faculty--the intellect.
The tools of the Paranoid are denial, distortion, and projection. These psychological tools are almost always pathological when used to cope with the real world. For the user these three primitive psychological defenses permit a rearrangement of external reality (so that actual reality may be avoided); for the beholder, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are known as the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood.
Denial is a refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening. There are examples of denial being adaptive (for example, it might be adaptive for a person who has a terminal illness to use some degree of denial). But for the most part, denial is only useful as a short-term strategy, to permit a person to come to terms with reality. As a long-term strategy to protect self-identity, it is potentially lethal--since the person or group that uses it extensively is blinded to the real danger that might be out there.
Distortion is a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs. Hinchey's bizarre accusations against the evil genius Rove are a perfect example. It is more acceptable to believe that some evil person has tricked you, than it is to believe that you behaved stupidly.
Delusional Projection occurs when an individual or group have delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.
It is easy to see how all these psychological manipulations work together to keep a person or a group insulated from reality. In truth, we witness such behavior all around us.
How does reason balance suspicion? You say to yourself: is this feeling paranoid? Do I have facts to back up my suspicions, or do I only feel that it is so? Are these facts? Or, are they distortions, because I really really want to believe this is true?
How do you tell a fact from a distortion? 9/11 was a FACT. It was planned and funded by Al-Qaeda and carried out by Islamic terrorists. These are FACTS. The widespread belief among Muslims that the Jews are behind 9/11 and that they did it so that the blame would fall on Muslims is a DISTORTION, which comes from DENIAL of the facts; and represents a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION. It is a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION because many Muslims want desperately to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and prohibits such acts, despite what is said in the Qu'ran, and what is practiced in the real world.
Here is another example. The CBS documents that Dan Rather used in his 60 Minutes story were forged. Therefore they CANNOT BE REAL DOCUMENTS. The BELIEF that what the forged documents contained is true (e.g., the "fake but true" argument) is only a BELIEF, not a fact. The statement that Karl Rove is responsible for leaking the documents in order to embarass Dan Rather/CBS/the Democrats when it was discovered that they were forged--is a BELIEF, based on PROJECTION.
Many people were overjoyed to have something that suggested their beliefs about President Bush were accurate and are angry that their belief was debunked. They felt angry, embarassed and humiliated for believing a hoax. Rather than admit they were foolish/unprofessional/acting on their emotions, they prefer to believe that someone very powerful must have set them up. This new belief makes them feel better about themselves; and simultaneously does exactly what they hoped the forged memo would do--embarass the Bush Adminsitration. Then like a true, arrogant paranoid individual, they pat themselves on the back at their heroic, courageous, and "principled" stand that their BELIEF trumps any facts. Note that their BELIEF in the truth of this will not be responsive to any facts to the contrary.
Emotions are an important part of life, but if you base all your behavior on what you FEEL, then you are vulnerable to all sorts of psyshopathology. Paranoia is an extreme of what otherwise would be helpful and normal reactions to the perception of danger. Paranoia distorts reality in the service of protecting the self from having to deal with unacceptable thoughts or feelings. It is useful to protect the integrity of the sense of self--sometimes even at the expense of one's life.
Paranoia helps individuals and groups defend against their own hostility and their perceived insignificance. Often the emotions displayed by the paranoid are covering up the exact opposite emotion within. The Paranoid cannot afford to face facts or reality because to do so would do two things:
(1) display to the world the deep, irrational hatred which he is defending himself against by making himself the "victim" of someone else's deep, irrational hatred; and
(2) admit his own insignificance, because if he is NOT the center of a plot and the focus of his "enemies" then he must be shamefully unimportant - a nobody.
You would think that a Paranoid person would be reassured to discover that people or groups are NOT out to get him. That there is no conspiracy against the group. You would be wrong. This is the last thing that the Paranoid individual or group really want, because--if they are not being persecuted, or betrayed, or lied to, or oppressed--then the Paranoid must face the devastating reality of his own insignificance. This he cannot do and it is why the alternate reality was constructed in the first place.
The Paranoid solution to unacceptable thoughts or feelings is to say, "If I am having these bad thoughts or feeling or behaviors, then someone else must be to blame and is making me do it." The Paranoid person does not take responsibility for his own thoughts or feelings or behaviors.
The healthy individual's solution is to take responsibility for his or her thoughts,feelings, and behaviors. Even if it is painful to acknowledge. But by owning his or her feelings, the healthy individual is able to exert control over inappropriate behavior that might spring from those feelings.
Another way of saying this is that you cannot choose the feelings that you experience- emotions are not generally under conscious control; but you can choose how to act on those feelings, because behavior is under conscious control.
Paranoia strikes deep. It will creep into your heart when you are afraid of your own feelings and try to disown them by blaming the "Jews", the "Blacks", or "Gays" or even President Bush. History has been littered with millions of dead bodies resulting from the denial, distortion and projection of paranoid leaders like Hitler,Stalin, Hussein, and Bin Laden. But those people had followers who believed just as they did, and did most of their dirty work.
You have to stop, look and see what's going down in your own heart if you want to understand how such evil can exist.
UPDATE: Go here for a discussion of some of the comments on this post.
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step outta line, the men come, and take you away
-Buffalo Springfield
I know. I know. I keep writing about Paranoia and Projection (see here , here and here). But the world of Politics attracts Paranoia like flypaper attracts flies. And it is deeply disturbing to observe.
The recent multiple sitings of paranoia exhibited by the Left would be amusing, if it weren't so alarming. Between the Gannon affair (which Glenn Reynolds wraps up here rather nicely) and Mo Hinchey's ravings; between the deeply disturbed fantasies at the Democratic Underground (I won't link to them); between the gay-baiting; the paternalistic and condescending attitude towards successful Blacks and Hisanics; the Left has plummeted into a hell of their own making.
There is a reason that human beings experience suspicion, distrust and hypervigilance. That reason is because there is REAL danger in the world. Our ancestors in the caves knew this to be true. They lived with continual danger just to survive every minute of every day. Those who did not have the psychological capacity to perceive the danger in the environment surely died out long ago.
But this important psychological trait which senses danger and strives to protect the ego; and which is accentuated in children and early in life, is appropriately balanced out by the development of the rational faculty--the intellect.
The tools of the Paranoid are denial, distortion, and projection. These psychological tools are almost always pathological when used to cope with the real world. For the user these three primitive psychological defenses permit a rearrangement of external reality (so that actual reality may be avoided); for the beholder, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are known as the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood.
Denial is a refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening. There are examples of denial being adaptive (for example, it might be adaptive for a person who has a terminal illness to use some degree of denial). But for the most part, denial is only useful as a short-term strategy, to permit a person to come to terms with reality. As a long-term strategy to protect self-identity, it is potentially lethal--since the person or group that uses it extensively is blinded to the real danger that might be out there.
Distortion is a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs. Hinchey's bizarre accusations against the evil genius Rove are a perfect example. It is more acceptable to believe that some evil person has tricked you, than it is to believe that you behaved stupidly.
Delusional Projection occurs when an individual or group have delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.
It is easy to see how all these psychological manipulations work together to keep a person or a group insulated from reality. In truth, we witness such behavior all around us.
How does reason balance suspicion? You say to yourself: is this feeling paranoid? Do I have facts to back up my suspicions, or do I only feel that it is so? Are these facts? Or, are they distortions, because I really really want to believe this is true?
How do you tell a fact from a distortion? 9/11 was a FACT. It was planned and funded by Al-Qaeda and carried out by Islamic terrorists. These are FACTS. The widespread belief among Muslims that the Jews are behind 9/11 and that they did it so that the blame would fall on Muslims is a DISTORTION, which comes from DENIAL of the facts; and represents a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION. It is a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION because many Muslims want desperately to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and prohibits such acts, despite what is said in the Qu'ran, and what is practiced in the real world.
Here is another example. The CBS documents that Dan Rather used in his 60 Minutes story were forged. Therefore they CANNOT BE REAL DOCUMENTS. The BELIEF that what the forged documents contained is true (e.g., the "fake but true" argument) is only a BELIEF, not a fact. The statement that Karl Rove is responsible for leaking the documents in order to embarass Dan Rather/CBS/the Democrats when it was discovered that they were forged--is a BELIEF, based on PROJECTION.
Many people were overjoyed to have something that suggested their beliefs about President Bush were accurate and are angry that their belief was debunked. They felt angry, embarassed and humiliated for believing a hoax. Rather than admit they were foolish/unprofessional/acting on their emotions, they prefer to believe that someone very powerful must have set them up. This new belief makes them feel better about themselves; and simultaneously does exactly what they hoped the forged memo would do--embarass the Bush Adminsitration. Then like a true, arrogant paranoid individual, they pat themselves on the back at their heroic, courageous, and "principled" stand that their BELIEF trumps any facts. Note that their BELIEF in the truth of this will not be responsive to any facts to the contrary.
Emotions are an important part of life, but if you base all your behavior on what you FEEL, then you are vulnerable to all sorts of psyshopathology. Paranoia is an extreme of what otherwise would be helpful and normal reactions to the perception of danger. Paranoia distorts reality in the service of protecting the self from having to deal with unacceptable thoughts or feelings. It is useful to protect the integrity of the sense of self--sometimes even at the expense of one's life.
Paranoia helps individuals and groups defend against their own hostility and their perceived insignificance. Often the emotions displayed by the paranoid are covering up the exact opposite emotion within. The Paranoid cannot afford to face facts or reality because to do so would do two things:
(1) display to the world the deep, irrational hatred which he is defending himself against by making himself the "victim" of someone else's deep, irrational hatred; and
(2) admit his own insignificance, because if he is NOT the center of a plot and the focus of his "enemies" then he must be shamefully unimportant - a nobody.
You would think that a Paranoid person would be reassured to discover that people or groups are NOT out to get him. That there is no conspiracy against the group. You would be wrong. This is the last thing that the Paranoid individual or group really want, because--if they are not being persecuted, or betrayed, or lied to, or oppressed--then the Paranoid must face the devastating reality of his own insignificance. This he cannot do and it is why the alternate reality was constructed in the first place.
The Paranoid solution to unacceptable thoughts or feelings is to say, "If I am having these bad thoughts or feeling or behaviors, then someone else must be to blame and is making me do it." The Paranoid person does not take responsibility for his own thoughts or feelings or behaviors.
The healthy individual's solution is to take responsibility for his or her thoughts,feelings, and behaviors. Even if it is painful to acknowledge. But by owning his or her feelings, the healthy individual is able to exert control over inappropriate behavior that might spring from those feelings.
Another way of saying this is that you cannot choose the feelings that you experience- emotions are not generally under conscious control; but you can choose how to act on those feelings, because behavior is under conscious control.
Paranoia strikes deep. It will creep into your heart when you are afraid of your own feelings and try to disown them by blaming the "Jews", the "Blacks", or "Gays" or even President Bush. History has been littered with millions of dead bodies resulting from the denial, distortion and projection of paranoid leaders like Hitler,Stalin, Hussein, and Bin Laden. But those people had followers who believed just as they did, and did most of their dirty work.
You have to stop, look and see what's going down in your own heart if you want to understand how such evil can exist.
UPDATE: Go here for a discussion of some of the comments on this post.
The Council Has Spoken!
The winners at the Watcher of Weasels' Weekly Post Contest are up:
BEST COUNCIL POST:
1. Waiting Little Red Blog
2. Some Students Need Lessons In Respecting Our Troops The Education Wonks
Dr. Sanity snagged 3rd Place with How Do You Solve a Problem Like Lynne Stewart?) in a tie with Wallo World's Jumping Between Truth Frames .
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Co-Opting Jihad Gates of Vienna
2. Shattering the Islamic Terrorist Stereotype QandO
Check out all the winners here. And, while you're at it, go over to King of the Blogs and vote for Dr. Sanity to be King (Queen) of the Blogs!! You can apparently vote for me once a day--so if you have voted before, go on back and vote again!
This is the last day of self-promotion, I promise!!!
BEST COUNCIL POST:
1. Waiting Little Red Blog
2. Some Students Need Lessons In Respecting Our Troops The Education Wonks
Dr. Sanity snagged 3rd Place with How Do You Solve a Problem Like Lynne Stewart?) in a tie with Wallo World's Jumping Between Truth Frames .
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Co-Opting Jihad Gates of Vienna
2. Shattering the Islamic Terrorist Stereotype QandO
Check out all the winners here. And, while you're at it, go over to King of the Blogs and vote for Dr. Sanity to be King (Queen) of the Blogs!! You can apparently vote for me once a day--so if you have voted before, go on back and vote again!
This is the last day of self-promotion, I promise!!!
Applying the "Gannon Standard"
Fair is Fair. Right Wing News takes the opportunity to show what happens when the "Gannon Standard" is applied to other White House Reporters:
In fact, the left is such a stickler over this issue -- in the case of Mr. Gannon at least -- that they're demanding to know why the White House didn't do a long, detailed examination of Jeff Gannon's sex life.
Who'd have thought this would be such a big issue to the left after they spent the Clinton years claiming that it was OK for the President to commit perjury as long as he was lying about sex? Interesting thought: I wonder how the left will react when Hillary's sex life is given "Jeff Gannon treatment" when she runs in 2008? Why am I guessing that they'll be upset?
In any case, that's beside the point -- especially since I have a hot, juicy scoop (well, it should be at least as big of a "scoop" as the lefties had with Gannon) . I've found another person who's getting into White House press conferences even though she's not a reporter!
Her name? It's Helen Thomas.
Read all about the "fair" and "objective" and "neutral" questions that a real professional "objective" and "fair" reporter asks during the White House briefings. Oh yes, I forgot "neutral".
In fact, the left is such a stickler over this issue -- in the case of Mr. Gannon at least -- that they're demanding to know why the White House didn't do a long, detailed examination of Jeff Gannon's sex life.
Who'd have thought this would be such a big issue to the left after they spent the Clinton years claiming that it was OK for the President to commit perjury as long as he was lying about sex? Interesting thought: I wonder how the left will react when Hillary's sex life is given "Jeff Gannon treatment" when she runs in 2008? Why am I guessing that they'll be upset?
In any case, that's beside the point -- especially since I have a hot, juicy scoop (well, it should be at least as big of a "scoop" as the lefties had with Gannon) . I've found another person who's getting into White House press conferences even though she's not a reporter!
Her name? It's Helen Thomas.
Read all about the "fair" and "objective" and "neutral" questions that a real professional "objective" and "fair" reporter asks during the White House briefings. Oh yes, I forgot "neutral".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)