Taking Responsibility

From ShrinkWrapped, we get a wonderful post about Responsibility:

The Psychoanalyst interprets defenses (essentially to help people stop fooling themselves about their own mental processes) in order to bring into consciousness those motivating ideas and feelings that the person has been incapable of facing directly. As I have pointed out to patients on many occasions: When you do not know why you behave the way you do, or feel the way you feel, you can not change anything. It is only once you understand why you are feeling the way you feel and why you do the things you do, that you have the choice of changing the behavior that causes you, and others, grief. In brief, the goal of psychoanalysis is to enlarge the area of mental life, feelings and behavior, that a person can take conscious responsibility for.

(Please note there are many types of treatment that help people change behavior, that do not involve "making the unconscious conscious", but they are treatments with different, more modest, goals than Psychoanalysis, which aims for deeper structural alterations in the character. The differences lead to a long discussion, better suited for another time and place.)

I have never been fond of "Pop" Psychology. Typically, when media types write about psychology and try to use psychoanalytic concepts, they oversimplify to the point of meaninglessness and generally misuse the concepts they write about, often with a (probably unconscious) political and philosophical bias. The emblematic themes of modern liberalism, with their selective use of psychological concepts, are victimhood and externalization of responsibility. In so much of what has occurred in our culture over the last 40 years, the idea of "root causes" became an unquestioned assumption. The "root causes" invoked as explanatory and exculpatory all seemed to arise in the external culture and especially in "abuse" by the powerful (with "abuse" being defined by spokespeople for the designated victim classes), or in the person's biochemistry, over which he would, of course, have no control.

The outcome of much of this has been the novel theory of causation, which essentially says that man is a helpless creature, at the mercy of his surrounding society and internal psycho-physiology, and therefore cannot be held responsible for anything he does. The exception is that the wealthy and successful, whether individuals, companies, or nations, are responsible for all that goes wrong for the victim and for the world.

What a refreshing attitude! I know that I grow weary sometimes fighting the perception that somehow Psychiatry (of which Psychoanalysis is a part) encourages victimhood and decreases personal responsibility. ShrinkWrapped correctly asserts that this is a result of "pop" psychiatry and psychology, which over-simplifies and trivializes psychological processes. This same "pop" psychology has either glorified or demonized theorists like Freud, and have used watered down versions of hisand other's ideas to "prove" many ridiculous assertions. The entire societal attitude towards preserving a child's "Self-Esteem" at any expense is a perfect example.

Read the entire post!

Orwell in Academia

Jonah Goldberg on "The Darker Side of Quotas":

This confirms data from California and Texas that when racial preferences are lifted, whites don't gain much, but Asian admissions jump through the roof. At the University of Texas-Austin, when preferences were removed, Asian freshmen jumped to 18 percent in a state where Asians comprise only 3 percent of the population.

In other words, what is denied with Orwellian savoir-faire by defenders of the Diversity-Academia complex is just plain obvious to people who are not professionally or ideologically invested in denying the existence of the elephant in the corner: The diversity "racket" discriminates against some minorities for the benefit of other minorities.

At this point, most anti-quota tirades tend to follow fairly predictable lines about the merits of meritocracy, the "soft bigotry" of low expectations, etc. These are all important and worthy arguments. But I think the Asian-American example highlights a point that often gets lost: Diversity regimes would be unfair even if minority applicants were completely qualified.

Today, the debate over diversity is driven largely by the unavoidable fact that, on average, African-Americans and Hispanics are less academically qualified than whites and various other demographic groups. This was highlighted a few years ago during arguments over the University of Michigan Law School's quota system. Justice Antonin Scalia noted during oral arguments before the Supreme Court that the easiest way to increase diversity would be to lower the law school's standards. If diversity is "important enough to override the Constitution's prohibition of racial distribution, it seems to me it's important enough to override Michigan's desire to have a super-duper law school."

This is where the Orwellian savoir-faire tends to kick in. The school's lawyers, along with columnists such as The Washington Post's David Broder and countless others, insisted that increasing diversity never comes at the expense of quality.

Well, if the trade-off didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this debate. If there were a surplus of high SAT-scoring, straight-A blacks and Hispanics, no one would sue because they lost their slot to a less-qualified minority. The entire affirmative action controversy is predicated on the unavoidable fact that there is a greater demand for well-qualified blacks than there is a supply. Period.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-George Orwell

Chutzpah

This article has some interesting history that I was not aware of: "Justice: For Arabs Only?" It discusses the Copts in Egypt—millions of them—who had their country overrun by conquering, settling, subjugating, and occupying Arabs; the Berber population of North Africa whose lands were overrun as well over the past centuries by conquering, settling, and subjugating Arab hordes creating Arab empires; and the brutal Arabization policies—Syrian settling, conquering, and occupying Arabs—employed against Kurds who predated them in the land by thousands of years.

Literally millions of native African Blacks have been butchered, maimed, enslaved, turned into refugees and seen their lands forcibly Arabized. All of this still going on today, and not just in the Sudan.

Half of Israel's almost six million Jews originated in the Arab/Muslim world. They too predated the Arabs in many of those lands that they were forced to flee as refugees, leaving far more property and valuables behind than Arabs who fled in the opposite direction after the latter's brethren invaded a reborn Israel in 1948.

The famous Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt, was prominent centuries before Jesus. The Jews of Iraq had been in that country at least since the days of the Babylonian Captivity and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews of Yemen were on the Arabian Peninsula before Muhammad was born, and the latter Prophet of Islam fled Mecca to Medina, a Jewish date palm oasis on that peninsula where the Jews were still prominent when Muhammad sought refuge there during the Hijra. When they would neither convert to his new faith (based largely on their own), nor accept his religio-political leadership, he butchered and enslaved them. Jews also took part in the resistance against the Arab imperial invasions of North Africa in the 7th century C.E. Recorded history, replete with similar instances, is difficult to reconcile with Amr Mussa's demand that the Jewish state submit to the will of the Arab world.

A better course for the Middle East might be the following:

It's time that the Africans of southern Sudan gain independence from the Arabs who have butchered, subjugated, and enslaved them over the centuries—long before the hypocrites in the United Nations raised so much as a mutter.

It's time for thirty million truly stateless people—such as the Kurds—to finally get their own state. They were promised one after World War I but saw it sacrificed at the altar of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. An Arab Iraq was pieced together in its stead.

Trusting Arabs—whether Shi'a or Sunni—is probably an unwise decision, given the track records of Arabs of any stripe towards these people. With almost two dozen states already—including one carved out of almost 80 percent of the original 1920 borders of "Palestine" and today called Jordan—Arabs now have an American-sponsored roadmap to help create yet another for themselves. Yet even as they demand justice for Arabs, they seem deaf, dumb, and blind to the plight of the Kurds.

Read the entire piece, which puts into historical perspective the Arab-Israeli conflict. I especially like the conclusion:

Jews have a word describing demands such as those made by Amr Musa. It's called chutzpah. Israel must have leaders who will respond to such so-called Arab prerequisites for "peace" by telling them where to stuff them.

What Media Bias?

Here's a headline: "US Has No Exit Strategy for Iraq, Rumsfeld Says". (hat tip: LGF) The headline was picked up here and here, for example. Note that the Indymedia piece (first link) conveniently places a large picture between the headline and the text.

Now, here's what Rumsfeld actually said (found in the second paragraph of the report):

"We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy,'' Rumsfeld told soldiers during a surprise visit to Baghdad, according to a pooled broadcast report from the capital. "The goal is to help the Iraqi Forces develop the skills and the capacity to provide their own security.'' (emphasis mine)

If this is not an example of bias, misdirection, deliberately misleading and complete and willful dedication to the political purpose of portraying everthing this administration does in the most negative light possible--I don't know what is.

Ok, I'm waiting to hear the usual apologist BS from the usual apologists for the incompetence and liberal bias of the media.

The Council Has Spoken !

The Watcher's Council has posted this week's winners over at the Watcher of Weasels.
This week there were some outstanding entries, so you should go and check all the winners out!

Here are the top posts in each category:

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. China's Time Bombs The Glittering Eye

Not bad for his first week on the Council!

And, tied for 2nd place:

Is There Evidence of Life at NASA? Dr. Sanity

Indonesian Quakes Could Trigger Supervolcano Eruption Alpha Patriot

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. War With China: 2008 - 2010? The Redhunter

And ANOTHER tie for 2nd Place:

A Change in Tactics Terrorism Unveiled

Talabani, the Kurds, and the Jews Neo-neocon

There's a lot of good reading in all these posts, so be sure to check them out!

Toast

One last thing related to the UN for the day! From an email to The Corner:

Subject: News Flash re Bolton
I have it from a close source that Bolton once dismissed a subordinate with a raised open palmed hand and uttterd the word, `whatever’ in a snarky, Valley Girl sorta way.

Let’s hope the Times or the Post doesn't run this above the fold--the nomination will be toast.

Too funny.

Quaking In Their Boots

I'm certain that this action taken by the courageous UN will have the evil-doers quaking in their boots.


(above) Bravely Bold Sir robUN votes to outlaw nuclear terrorism.

DISCLOSURE***DISCLOSURE***DISCLOSURE
Some of you may notice that I am not happy when the UN does something (e.g., as noted in this post); and I am not happy when the UN doesn't do something (e.g., Darfur). I can't be pleased, you say! When it comes to the institution of the UN, you are absolutely correct!

When the UN actually does something--no matter how feeble, even like this example where they passed a resolution--all you have to do is just wait for the other shoe to fall. Soon they will be declaring that along with Israel, the United States meets their definition of being a "terrorist" and must unilaterally disarm. Just wait.

A New Proverb for the UN

"People who live in glass houses should be very, very afraid of Bulls..."


Cox and Forkum.

National Brotherhood Week - UN Version

U.N. Calls for Combating 'Defamation' of Islam: (hat tip: Free Thoughts)

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights called on Tuesday for combating defamation of religions, especially Islam, and condemned discrimination against Muslims in the West's war on terrorism.

The 53-member state forum adopted a resolution, presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), deploring the intensification of a "campaign of defamation" against Muslims following the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

Western countries, including the United States and European Union (EU), voted against the text, calling it unbalanced for failing to address problems suffered by other religious groups.

Putting aside the fact that this is a blatant attempt to limit freedom of speech, I wonder what the countries who voted for this would think of this or this or this ?

Personally, I think their resolution should be amended to combat any DELUSIONAL defamation of religions (as in the above examples, which I found in about 3 minutes). Islam is in continual state of psychotic delusion about Judaism. On the other hand, rational governments are appropriately concerned about Islam's obvious connection to international terrorism.

However, like all true Paranoids, the countries of Islam project their own psychopathology onto others, and then whine piteously about being persecuted.

And the United Nations feels their pain....

Personally, I can't wait for Bolton to be confirmed.

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark
Are dancing cheek to cheek
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks
And the rich folks hate the poor folks
All of my folks hate all of your folks
It's American as apple pie

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans
'Cause it's very chic
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand
You can tolerate him if you try

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-
One-Another-hood Week
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you
It's only for a week, so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!- Tom Lehrer

Cats, Dogs, and Arab Women

From MEMRI:

Writing in Elaph.com on March 7, 2005 Saudi author Wajiha Al-Huweidar explained: "All of the Arab regimes are U.N. members and have ratified the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly establishes justice and equality in the rights and obligations of all citizens. Despite this, women in our chauvinist countries are still considered the property of their relatives. All Arab countries, without exception, harbor covert animosity and open discrimination against women. To this day, all official bodies reject any scientific discussion of a solution to women's problems – while on the other hand the men, who benefit from women's oppression, continue to regurgitate [the mant r a] that 'women are respected' [in Arab and Muslim societies]…
"Arab countries' legislation patently discriminates against women and clearly denies their rights, which affronts them as human beings. They are still treated as though they contaminate purity, and arouse temptation and immorality. What is astounding is that most Arabs, at all levels and in every area – whether governments, institutions, or individuals – still consider women's issues a religious issue, and thus believe that her concerns should be dealt with through outdated chauvinist [religious] interpretations…

"An improvement in women's status will not come through invalid solutions which have been proven ineffectual. The laws grant female citizens only half a voice, diminish women's rights, classify them as having only partial sense, denigrate their importance, doubt their capabilities, permit beating and banishing them, permit their caging within four walls, allow their husbands to treat them as they see fit, and allow them to be bought and sold according to legal agreements. When women fail [in matters forbidden by religious law], the laws welcome their barbarous execution.

"These laws are clearly no longer suited to an era in which cats and dogs in the developed world have more rights than Arab women, and more even than those of Arab men…

Read the entire article for the views of several women scholars. One of the women quoted makes this observation which I found particularly pointed (scroll down in the article):

"The question that must be asked is what the Arab and Islamic countries have given women on their world day of celebration. I look beyond the horizon and see nothing. I see nothing but the tightening of the noose around the woman, to the point where she is prevented from owning her own face. [Her face] is the property of the man, and she must not uncover it. Of what modernization in women's issues can these countries speak, when the men of this world pass a law permitting the stoning of the woman [for violating religious convention], because she [harmed] man's honor? Has he any honor in the world of today?" (emphasis mine)

This is an important observation and cuts to the heart of the issue of women's rights in Arab and Islamic countries. I realize that I write fairly frequently about this issue (see here, here, here for example--and that is only in the last month!). That is because I think that it is one of the most important issues of our times, and must be addressed aggressively if we want to get to the psychological roots of terrorism and and end its dominance in those cultures.

Someday They Will Overcome...Something

Bruce Thornton at VDH Private Papers discusses the "Smoking Gun" at Columbia University investigation into faculty accused by students of anti-semitism:

The smoking gun, however, is the inclusion in the committee of people who signed the divestiture petition, for that sorry document expresses the bizarre, ideologically driven bias against Israel characterizing too many academics, as can be seen in the initiative's preamble: "We, the undersigned, are appalled by the human rights abuses against Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government, the continual military occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory by Israeli armed forces and settlers, the forcible eviction of Palestinians from their homes, and the demolition of Palestinian dwellings, neighborhoods and towns." Not a word about terrorism and Islamikaze homicide bombers, not a word about Palestinian Authority corruption and abuses against their own people, not a word about Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, not a word about the Arab nations' three attempts to destroy the state of Israel. Even more offensive is the implied analogy with apartheid South Africa, the last nation to face the tactic of divestiture. This vicious analogy is utterly false, but it reflects the U.N. sanctioned slander that Zionism is a racist ideology. That academics, presumably trained to think critically and to respect truth, should publicly associate themselves with such an ideologically driven distortion of the Israeli-Palestinian Arab crisis bespeaks the extent of the political and intellectual corruption of higher education.

However, it is important to understand just how embedded this corruption is in every level of the academic institution, from its administrative structure to the kinds of scholarship it now rewards, for the politics and bias in the classroom ultimately are just one aspect of a larger set of assumptions and ideologies dominating higher education. Take, for example, committee member Jean E. Howard, a professor of English who signed the divestiture petition. Howard's approach to literature is a mixture of feminism and "new historicism," a fancy phrase for an old-fashioned marxiste determinist reduction of literature and ideas to material causes, particularly the social and political distribution of power.

For a flavor of Howard's kind of analysis and its jargonish prose, consider the following: "Materialist feminism is . . . [a] situated project of knowing, opposed to the class reductionism and economic determinism of classical Marxism but committed to the materialist position that oppression, whether by gender, race or class, involves more than 'prejudice', but is instantiated in exploitative divisions of labor, in unequal access to cultural resources (money, birth control, technical training, leisure)." In other words, literature is really about politics, and politics is about oppression and exclusion in much wider terms than "classical Marxism['s]" limited ones of class and economics. But oppression and exclusion require oppressors and excluders, and who do you think those villains are? What do you bet they're white males and capitalists and conservatives? This approach to literature is necessarily biased politically, and it grinds its ideological ax with the aim of changing students' minds to conform to the professor's ideology. Yet Howard was considered objective enough to judge fairly whether political bias exists in MEALAC courses.

Read the entire post. And then read this article in the Washington Post by an educational consultant who gently suggests that University professors "come back down to earth":

With faculty and administrations leading the way, political correctness and posturing -- from both the left and right -- is reaching dizzying heights in the land of the ivory tower. And rising right along with it is the frustration of middle-class parents, who are growing increasingly resentful of paying sky-high tuition for colleges they see offering their kids a menu of questionable courses and politically absurd campus climates that detract from the quality of a university education.

Duke University found itself in a crossfire after voluntarily hosting an anti-Israel group's annual national conference. The president of Columbia University had to appoint a commission to look into student charges that certain professors, with whose views on the Middle East conflict the students disagreed, were attempting to indoctrinate and intimidate them. Hamilton College issued a speaking invitation to a University of Colorado professor who had written an essay arguing that the 9/11 attacks were a justified reaction to U.S. policies abroad. And locally, a ruckus broke out at George Mason University after it invited filmmaker Michael Moore to campus -- and then disinvited him after receiving political pressure from Virginia lawmakers to cancel the speech.

Colleges have long been hotbeds of political agitation, of course. But where it was once students who did the acting out, as they spread their intellectual and philosophical wings, now the professors and administrators are more likely to be playing politics -- and more and more Americans with college-age kids are getting fed up with it. In 18 years of in-the-trenches experience counseling kids on their college choices, I've never seen the unhappiness as widespread as it is today. If colleges don't tone down the politics, and figure out how to control ballooning costs, they run the risk of turning off enough American consumers that many campuses could marginalize themselves right out of existence.

Thirty plus years ago those who are the current professors were just students acting out during the Vietnam war. Their legacy continues to infect our college campuses. I won't bother to detail the entire insanity of that time (those of us who lived through it can remember it well enough), which was driven by the love affair of the so-called intellectuals with Marxism.

Those students are the intellectual elites of today's campus. Since Marxism and its social experiments have been consigned to the dustbin of history, the object of their infatuation has changed somewhat. Nowadays they don't much care what they believe, as long as they are anti-American; anti-Israeli; anti-Freedom; anti-Capitalism. They cling tightly to the old formulas that seemed to work in the 60's and 70's, even chanting the same slogans and singing the same songs --which might have had real meaning in the past. Someday maybe they will overcome...the delusion that they stand for something.

Why should we care? Let those famous (and not so famous) Universities fail. Let those ivory towers collapse under the weight of their ideology. Most parents are intelligent enough to conclude that universities who employ and encourage such sophistry are not the kind of place they want to send their children or their money.

Other colleges and universities will replace them in the marketplace of ideas; and we will all be better off for it.

Exposing An Agenda

Robert Novack's piece is the talk of the town, and well it should be:

On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party.

Livingston in effect declined by responding that if he wrote anything for the Times, it would be pro-DeLay. But this remarkable case of that august newspaper fishing for an op-ed piece makes it appear part of a calculated campaign to bring down the single most powerful Republican in Congress. The Democratic establishment and left-wing activists have targeted DeLay as the way to end a decade of Republican control of the House.

Makes it appear? Even I--who happen to believe that the MSM has a liberal bias--am completely astounded that a major newspaper would do this. Can you possible imagine the incoherent rage of the Democrats if something like this were tried on them? But, of course, that is the point. It wouldn't.

Eric Pfeiffer at the Beltway Buzz has this to say:

As I noted in my article today, the media has been on a big game hunt to find GOP cracks in DeLay support. Novak asserts, “the quest by The New York Times for a prominent Republican to suggest his resignation may cross a line.”

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell issued the following statement on Novak’s story:

“This case makes the political agenda of the New York Times perfectly clear. They want to destroy Tom DeLay, period. What liberals could not do at the ballot box, they are trying to do through the ‘news’ media. These actions prove how the media are actively demonizing DeLay. It has nothing to do with the search for truth. The New York Times has indicted and convicted DeLay already. Now they’re trying to execute him politically.”

I wonder what the Times' Public Editor has to say about this atrocity. No wonder Daniel Okrent is leaving this newspaper. Between this and their selling out the public by publishing the results of the Columbia University panel by cutting a "deal" so that only one side would be presented--he must be terribly ashamed to be associated with such sleazy journalism--I certainly would be (and yes, that is a projection on my part!).

NARCISSISM AND SOCIETY: Part I - The Psychology of the Self

[Part II is here; and Part III is here.]

For some years now, I have been thinking of way to reconcile my observations on human nature and psychology with my understanding of economic and political systems. Since I first studied it back in the 70's and 80's, I have thought that one particular psychological theory--Kohut's Psychology of the Self (as presented in his books and writings, particularly The Analysis of the Self and The Restoration of the Self )-- has some important implications for understanding why certain political systems are successful and compatible with human nature and why some are grossly incompatible with it.

So at the beginning of this essay I will make the following disclaimer: the basic ideas discussed about the Psychology of the Self belong to Heinz Kohut; and the political applications of his theories and concepts are my own thoughts. Don't blame Kohut for any errors or misstatements!

I also apologize in advance for the use of some esoteric psychiatric language. In general, I have mostly tried to explain the ideas as simply as possible (believe it or not!). My hope is that it can generate some discussion and debate.

What is Narcissism ?
I think we should start at the beginning. The term "narcissism" was coined by Sigmund Freud, who named the phenomenon after the Narcissus in Greek mythology. Narcissus was a handsome young man who rejected the desperate advances of the nymph Echo who loved him. As a punishment, the gods doomed him to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love, Narcissus pined away and changed into the flower that bears his name. (Incidentally, Echo also wasted away until she was just a whisper, barely heard).

The clinical syndrome of Narcissism (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is described in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association as: "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy."

According to the DSM-IV, the disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by the subject exhibiting at least five of the following:
1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or
ideal love
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

Everyone has some Narcissistic traits, and a certain amount of Narcissism is a necessary and healthy thing. What’s different about the personality disorder is that the symptoms are prominent and persistent over time and pervade every aspect of the person’s existence. It can be very disabling in extreme cases; and in others those who have this personality can make the people around them thoroughly miserable, since some narcissists can be manipulative, predatory and completely lacking in empathy. Narcissists are notoriously spiteful and vicious and usually alienate anyone close to them.

Why is Narcissism Important?

All over the world, on a daily basis we see the horrible results of Narcissistic behavior. Individuals and groups; religions and nations act out their Narcissistic rage at various insults--real and imagined-- and people suffer and die for the purpose of the grandiosity of the tyrant, or the glory of the religion. It has been said that the 20th century was the “century of the Narcissist”, but the 21st is well on its way to outdoing the horrors of the past as a seeming epidemic of malignant Narcissism caused by a crushing of human nature and the human spirit--all for the purpose of serving the self-aggrandizing vision of the few.

Tim Hall of the NY Press writes:

Narcissism is hot. In the wake of the dot-com implosion and recent business scandals, many are focusing their attention on what otherwise might have remained an obscure psychological disorder. Much of the New Economy bubble seems to have arisen from narcissism run amok: The grandiosity of crooked executives and their haughty contempt for business and accounting procedures; the relentless manipulation of (and by) investors, analysts, and employees; the utter lack of empathy for others; the complete and total denial of any wrongdoing when everything fell apart.

For many on the Left side of the political spectrum, it is axiomatic that Narcissism is inextricably linked to business, Capitalism, individualism, and the pursuit of profit. The Left has idealized certain social and political systems because they suppressed the individual and elevated the state, insisting that individuals had no right to exist for their own selves, but only to serve others.

Executives, such as The Rigases of Adelphia Corp; Samuel D. Waksal, the socialite founder of ImClone Systems; Dennis Kozlowski, of Tyco International; Scott D. Sullivan of WorldCom; and Ken Lay of Enron, typify the ugly Narcissist of the business world with his or her extreme grandiosity; selfishness of unbelievable proportions; and complete lack of empathy towards the people they cheated. While the majority of businessmen are ethical and honest individuals, only a few “bad apples” are needed to demonstrate the havoc that malignant Narcissism in the business sector can wreak.

But what is not generally or readily seen (either on the Left or Right) is the flip side of "selfish" or "grandiose" Narcissism-- and that is what I will call Narcissism rooted in idealism, rather than selfishness, or "idealistic" Narcissism. This second kind of Narcissism (the flip side of the coin, if you will) is less obvious to an observer, since it is disguised with a veneer of concern for others. But it is equally—if not more—destructive and causative of human suffering, death and misery. Both kinds of Narcissism are a plague on the world; and both are well-traveled avenues for limiting freedom and imposing tyranny. The "grandiose" Narcissism is the stimulus for individual tyrants, while the "idealistic" Narcissism leads to groups imposing their will on others. We will talk more of this in Part II.

First, I need to explain what healthy Narcissism is and how it develops. The political and economic implications follow after the foundation is set.

Healthy Narcissism and Kohut’s Psychology of the Self

This part of my discussion is based on the theories of Self Psychology by Heinz Kohut. Kohut was a psychoanalyst (he died in 1981) whose controversial theories had a considerable impact on psychiatry and psychoanalysis. He was an innovative thinker (and a rather opaque writer) who broke with Freud in some important areas. His ideas have influenced me tremendously, both in the way I approach patients and understand their concerns, as well as the way I treat them. Every day in my psychiatric practice I see the truth of his ideas in the interactions I have with my patients; and in the interactions of my patients in society-at-large.

Freud’s view of Narcissism can be summed up by saying that true psychic health requires a complete dissociation from the primary Narcissism inherent in the infant and child. The individual during his or her development tries to find and maintain a form of self love that is compatible with healthy relationships with other(this is called “object relations” in psychiatry).

The bottom line is that Freud considered Narcissism quite negatively. He saw it as only associated with severe pathology and considered it the antithesis of being able to achieve normal and healthy relationships.

Some have referred to Kohut’s Psychology of the Self as "psychoanalysis without original sin"—i.e., the “original sin” that Freud considered Narcissism. One of Kohut’s breaks with Freudian tradition is that he considered Narcissism affirmatively, as an essential part of the Self; and described how it develops in the healthy individual.

What is the “Self”? The “Self” can be thought of as a content of the mental apparatus; a structure within the mind that has continuity in time and a specific location. The “Self” is therefore analogous to how one represents other people within the mind. Some people mistake the “Self” with Freud’s concept of “Ego”, but “Ego” (along with “Id” and “Superego”) are agencies of the mind, rather than a specific content of it. “Identity” can be thought of as the Self’s socio-cultural position in the world.

A healthy Self has two fundamental and equally important parts:

1) Self-Esteem – or a sense that one has a right to Life and success; ambition; a healthy exhibitionism and comfort with one’s body. This part of the Self supplies the instinctual fuel for ambition and purpose; and for enjoyment of Life’s activities.

2) Ideals – a belief in something outside the “Self” that guides and gives meaning to one’s Life. Having ideals make developing one’s goals in Life possible. It is this part of the Self that also makes healthy interpersonal relationships possible.

The development of BOTH parts is essential to psychological health. When one part develops at the expense of the other—it has grave consequences for the individual and society.

The Diagram below summarizes the normal development of the Self; and as you can see, there are two equally important and parallel lines of development that have their origin in human biology and dependence of the infant on an adult for survival during the first years of life.



The infant is born with what is called “Primary Narcissism”. Mothers know that the newborn child is not able to differentiate between the Mother (referred to as “Other”) and himself (referred to as “Self”). For example, the Mother's breast is treated by the infant initially as a part of himself. Slowly over months and years, the child begins to differentiate himself from the Mother; and as he goes through normal biological development he becomes more and more independent and self-sufficient.

At some point, the Self and the Other--once "perfectly" merged--are now two distinct objects. This important process of separation-individuation is facilitated by the normal shortcomings(i.e. imperfections) in maternal care, which spur the child's development as an individual. For example: baby demands food, but mother is unavailable right now and doesn’t feed baby until her schedule permits (but doesn’t let him starve either!). Such natural and normal imperfections of empathy with the child are actually healthy. I won’t go into a full discussion of this, but suffice it to say that the Other must not be too perfect, nor too imperfect, as either extreme carried on for too long will interfere with the developing Self of the child.

It is because of the slow separation of Self from Other that the two developmental lines come into being. The first line Kohut refers to as the “Grandiose Self”(or idealized self image) and the second is referred to as the “Idealized Parent Image”. Both of these images represent psychological attempts to save the original experience of "perfection" by the infant when the Mother (Other) and the infant (Self) were “one”.

The “Grandiose Self” will develop over time (if not disrupted) into healthy Self-Esteem; and the” Idealized Parent Image” will eventually lead to the development of Ideals that give meaning to the individual’s life; and to healthy interpersonal relationships.

In Part II, I will discuss how-- when either or both of these two developmental lines are disrupted during the child's development (either through biology or environment)--they can seriously impact the individual, his/her family and even the wider society. It is my contention that these two developmental lines suggest a powerful reason why individuals may be attracted to one type of political system or another, and I will also discuss the implications of that.

Another Rhetorical Question

While John Kerry is whining about voters being "tricked" into thinking that they should vote on the wrong day, here is a REAL story of disenfranchisement that you would think the former Vietnam veteran (did he mention he was a Vietnam veteran?) would champion (hat tip: Jim O):

The votes of at least 1 in 4 U.S. soldiers and overseas voters in last fall's election never were counted.

That's the conclusion of a recent report by the National Defense Committee, a private, pro-military organization that surveyed local election offices across the country about the number of absentee votes cast and counted in the Nov. 3 election.

In all, more than 30,000 of the 131,000 absentee ballots sent by troops and expatriates to 760 local elections offices around the country were not counted, the report found. Those offices represent about 10 percent of the 7,800 offices nationwide.

This disenfranchisement rate was a bit better than that of the 2000 presidential election, where widespread voting and mail glitches left about 29 percent of the ballots uncounted.

Even so, the organization said its study likely suffered from an undercount of its own that could make the number of troops left voteless last year even larger.

"The disenfranchisement rate we show is bad enough, but we think that our report probably understates the problem because we are relying on voluntary responses from election officials," the report said.

If Democrats are so interested in making sure "every vote counts" you would think that this would be an important issue for them.... I wonder why they don't appear to be interested?

Good News

This seems like extremely good news from Iraq:

Two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the American-led military campaign in Iraq is making enough progress in fighting insurgents and training Iraqi security forces to allow the Pentagon to plan for significant troop reductions by early next year, senior commanders and Pentagon officials say.

Senior American officers are wary of declaring success too soon against an insurgency they say still has perhaps 12,000 to 20,000 hard-core fighters, plentiful financing and the ability to change tactics quickly to carry out deadly attacks. But there is a consensus emerging among these top officers and other senior defense officials about several positive developing trends, although each carries a cautionary note.

Attacks on allied forces have dropped to 30 to 40 a day, down from an average daily peak of 140 in the prelude to the Jan. 30 elections but still roughly at the levels of a year ago. Only about half the attacks cause casualties or damage, but on average one or more Americans die in Iraq every day, often from roadside bombs. Thirty-six American troops died there in March, the lowest monthly death toll since 21 died in February 2004.

I notice a big drop in news about Iraq--both in the papers and on TV--so one can assume from that, that things must be going generally in a positive direction-- since we definitely would hear about it if something went badly.

Let us hope for the best!

Kerry Keeps on Katerwauling

Power Line notes that John Kerry has redefined "sore loser" to an art form; and in addition is going around insulting members of his own party. He wonders:

...why aren't Democrats offended by this nonsense? Does John Kerry really think that his voters are so dumb that they actually believe that members of different parties are supposed to vote on different days? News flash, John: that line about Democrats voting on Wednesday is a joke. I differ with Democrats on all kinds of issues, but I would never insult their intelligence the way the leaders of their own party do. Why do rank-and-file Democrats put up with it? Beats me.

Meanwhile, it has been 70 days since John Kerry promised to sign the Form 180 to release all his military records. Polipundit points to a blogger obsessed with Kerry signing the Form 180 (here's the link --and note that she uses some very, very...ummmmm...descriptive language that perfectly accurately (IMHO) describes the former Democratic presidential nominee).

SIGN THE FORM 180, KERRY, AND STOP WHINING.

Another Free Pass

I have no great love for the ethically-challenged Tom DeLay. The question for me, though, is why DeLay the Republican is getting so much media attention for his questionable actions, when Harry Reid the Democrat is not? From NRO Beltway Buzz:

The Los Angeles Times correctly notes that numerous members of Congress have family members on the payroll. But Harry Reid truly leads by example. In the words of the LAT:

“Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.”

“In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.”

“So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.”

In fact, Reid's behavior in this area far outstrips DeLay's--and has more serious ethical implications:

In 2002, Reid introduced a funding proposal without stating his family ties. As the LAT notes: “

The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.”

Let's see. Can anyone think of a reason why Reid would get a free press pass from most of the Media, while there are daily articles castigating DeLay's behavior and calling for his resignation?

Carnival of the Insanities

Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week.

1. Oh. I thought they were desperate to get inside the place for some bizarre reason. Headline envy. I like that.

2. Even dead he has more class than these people. Or these.

3. Noise? How about NICOTINE?

4. A whitewash? No, really? How can that be? Martha spent time in jail for a lot less, but then she's just a businesswoman.

5. This could really be bad for some newspapers.

6. What about an interview in the afterlife?

7. Payback?

8. I wondered why he didn't show up.

9. I'll bet he was upset. Too f***ing bad.

10. The Caped Crusader?

11. UN says the UN is harming the UN. Hard to believe, isn't it?

12. Jeez. Get a life. (to quote William Shatner).

13. I couldn't resist this one! (It's a joke, but even I thought it could be true at first).

14. Are you older than this? Take this test to see.

15. Not the usual way to renew your license.

Weasels

Wretchard at the Belmont Club has an excellent post up discussing the Pulitzer-prize winning photograph of Iraqi election workers executed on Baghdad's Haifa Street; and the recent detention of the CBS photographer/stringer suspected of working with terrorists. I urge you to read the entire post. At one point Wretchard compares statements from CBS and AP justifying the use of questionable Iraqi stringers with terrorist connections and concludes:

"It is common practice ... several brave Iraqi photographers ... covering the communities they live in ... give them access" are weasel phrases which cannot disguise the essentially immoral relationship where news agencies bestow protected person status on enemy combatants in exchange for bloody images which can then be sold for money. Personally, I would rather be the man who takes the photos, at some risk to myself, than the man who commissions them. It's cleaner.

Much cleaner. But then being clean--or honest-- isn't high on a weasel's list of priorities.

Spring Fever

It is hard to type with my cast on and it's such a lovely day anyway.... The forsythia are blooming in the back yard.

I'm going to take the day off blogging and attend to some things around the house.

Maybe I'll even completely goof off and do nothing but sit outside in the sun and read. Enjoy the day!

Physician Heal Thyself

I have basically wasted an entire day in the emergency room (actually, it is an "urgent care" clinic). If I'd had anything serious, I probably would have expired there, but since I have only managed to break my wrist, I suppose I'll live.

The above whining is my way of apologizing that I haven't had anything brilliant and incisive to say today (or ever, some say). Anyway, I'll be back and blogging in my cast tomorrow, whether you like it or not.

The Council Has Spoken!

This week's winners are up at the Watcher of Weasels. You should check them all out!

In First Place for BEST COUNCIL POST is:

Taming the Whirlwinds of History by Right Wing Nut House

And in a 4-way tie (!!!) for second place:

Washington State Teachers Union Boycotts Wal-Mart and Hurts Itself InsteadThe Education Wonks

Moving MelancholyAlpha Patriot

Footnotes #10 The SmarterCop

Civilization and its Discontents Dr. Sanity

In the BEST NON-COUNCIL POST category we have:

1st Place:

W M D - or How ‘W’ Made the Difference by PoliPundit.com

And a 3-way tie for 2nd Place:

An Education Initiative That Will Be Popular In Indiana, At the Very Least...Dennis the Peasant

Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.WILLisms

The Pulitzer Prize for Felony Murder...Power Line

Congratulations to all the winners!

Cookies and Other Blogger Idiocies

Until just a few minutes ago, I was unable to access Blogger, and do any posting. Apparently, you now have to clear all your cookies to access your posts. Since last night and this morning I wasn't even able to access the site that lists problems, I had no way of knowing this before now.

Sometimes I would really like to clear all their cookies.

Completely Psychotic

Actually you can be both Schizophrenic AND Borderline. Isn't it time for a consistent and rational policy about immigration? Shouldn't this be a bipartisan issue? Or shall we continue to be insanely stupid about our borders, our security and the freedom that makes people want to come here in the first place?

Who Would Have Thought?

From Iraq:(hat tip: LGF)

The Iraqi parliament picked Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani as the country's new interim president Wednesday, reaching out to the nation's long-repressed Kurdish minority and bringing the country closer to its first democratically elected government in 50 years.

Ousted members of the country's former regime — including toppled leader Saddam Hussein — watched the event on television in their prison cells, Human Rights Minister Bakhtiyar Amin told Al-Arabiya television.

The announcement that Talabani won drew applause in the National Assembly. In the north, Kurds danced in the streets upon hearing the news.

"Today Jalal Talabani made it to the seat of power, while Saddam Hussein is sitting in jail," said Mohammed Saleh, a 42-year-old Kurd in Kirkuk. "Who would have thought."

From Afghanistan:(hat tip: Chrenkoff)

Sitting behind the steering wheel of her red 4x4 Toyota, Sina Shireen gets a kick out of being one of the first women in this western Afghan city to throw off her burqa and learn how to drive.

The diminutive 22-year-old may be hard to see behind the tinted windows of the massive car but three years ago she had to be completely shrouded in an all-encompassing blue burqa even to leave the house.

“The most joyful moments of my life are when I’m driving -- I love it,” Shireen says, the excitement visible on her face as she finally gets to do what the country’s male motorists take for granted.

High school student Shireen is taking part at the first ever-driving course in Herat, Afghanistan’s most prosperous city, which was launched in early February by the traffic department, under the auspices of the new governor.

From Washington D.C. via the Ukraine:

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has addressed a joint meeting of both houses of the US Congress, an honour awarded to Washington's closest allies.
Mr Yushchenko - who has been hailed as a hero throughout a four-day visit to the US -received a rapturous welcome on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

Members of Congress cheered and chanted his name as he walked to the platform.

The Ukrainian leader thanked US support for democracy, and urged Washington to lift trade restrictions.

In his speech, he echoed the language of President George W Bush, with whom he had previously held talks. The US condemned fraud and upheld Ukrainians' right to freely elect their government

Mr Yushchenko spoke of the importance of liberty and said his goal was to "place Ukraine among prosperous democracies".

And last, but not least, From Lebanon:

Syria's pledge to withdraw all its troops from Lebanon by April 30 and end a 29-year military presence there will meet U.N. Security Council demands, a U.N. envoy said Monday as Beirut agreed to allow a U.N. team to verify the withdrawal of Syrian forces.

Syrian President Bashar Assad told U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen on Sunday his country's remaining 8,000 soldiers and intelligence agents will all leave Lebanon by the end of the month. Syria's official SANA news agency reported Monday that the final phase of the ongoing withdrawal will begin Thursday.

About 6,000 Syrian troops have already left the country since March.

U.N. and U.S. demands on Syrian forces to leave Lebanon intensified following the Feb. 14 assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri. In September, Security Council resolution 1559 called for an end to Syrian interference in its smaller neighbor.

Washington demands a full Syrian withdrawal before parliamentary elections, which should be held before the May 31 expiration of the Lebanese legislature's mandate.

Four short years ago, who indeed would have thought that such profound changes would sweep across the world under the banner of Liberty? Incredible.

An American Pope?

Hugh Hewitt thinks that--as improbable as it might seem--the conclave of Cardinals just might name an American Pope, or someone "uniquely equipped to speak to this culture". Why does he think this? He calls it the "Schiavo Effect":

I bring this up as a way of reminding people that Terri Schiavo's suffering and the suffering of her family were not purposeless, and despite the crush of media surrounding the Pope's death, also far from forgotten. Her fifteen year struggle culminated on the eve of the most momentous decision the Roman Catholic Church's leadership can take, and illumens the significance of the next few weeks. If many Cardinals had the idea that a "caretaker" pope might be in order, the drama in Florida works against that desire for a period of calm transition. Would the allies have selected a caretaker general on the eve of D-Day had Ike suffered a mishap?

Is the idea of a "Schiavo effect" on the conclave just another American's preoccupation with American issues projected onto the much broader and much more indifferent world? Perhaps, but I don't think so precisely because on matters of science and ethics, on morals and sharp breaks with the past, the United States sets the tempo for much of the world.

Somehow, I doubt this will happen, but you never know. We live in interesting times.

Oh Pu-leeeze

I must be extrordinairily tired today because instead of the usual revulsion, this just stimulated an incredible sense of existential exhaustion and ennui (hat tip:LGF) :

The clashes erupted after supporters of the Islamic religious parties alliance (MMA) attacked the men and women contesting the race with batons and stones, police said.
The protesters blocked the race course and chased competitors away as they approached the sports stadium where they were expected to finish race.

A spokesman for the MMA told the Associated Press news agency that the alliance had warned organisers against holding the race "because it is against Islam".

"They want to undress the entire nation," Riaz Durrani said.

"It is indecent for women to run in the streets. They want the sisters and sisters-in-law of the nation to wear knickers and T-shirts."

Two months ago Islamic groups strongly criticised a race in Lahore, saying the female participants had violated Muslim dress code.

Those poor, pathetic, psychologically and physically castrated men of Islam. Humiliating, beating and degrading women seems to be the only way to assert their masculinity--that, and blowing themselves and their masculine organs to smithereens for 72 imaginary virgins.

On reflection, if I were a Muslim woman in those societies, I would probably really encourage them in the latter strategy.

He Loved His Mother

His rivals used to say quite a bit
That as a monarch he was most unfit.
But still in all they had to admit
That he loved his mother.

Yes, he loved his mother like no other,
His daughter was his sister and his son was his brother.
One thing on which you can depend is,
He sure knew who a boy's best friend is.- Tom Lehrer, Oedipus Rex

Ahhhhhh. I never realized what a caring, sensitive human being he really is. I guess even pious thugs can have a heart! (hat tip: Iraq the Model)

Another Superior Intellect

Mike Adams, author of Welcome to The Ivory Tower of Babel has an article up at FrontPageMagazine. I am going to quote just a bit of it, but you will get his major point:

For example, there is Jane Christensen who teaches at North Carolina Wesleyan College. One look at her webpage makes me proud to be a Methodist.

It isn't really the picture of Jane holding an M-16 with a black hood over her head that bothers me. I am more bothered by her refusal to return my phone calls so we can discuss the content of her web page and some of her courses. Her webpage links to some interesting articles, which say some interesting things. An example follows:

"America is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under Zionist control...Jews rule America (and most of the world) by proxy. They trick us into fighting and dying for THEM. Politicians of the 'free world' are too cowardly to oppose Zionism."

Another link presents the theory that Ariel Sharon is preparing to launch attacks in America:

"Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries..."

Ladies and gentlemen, it gets much worse. You did see that this person is Jane T. Christensen, Associate Professor of Political Science at North Carolina Wesleyan College? (She's on the left in the photo, by the way--how symbolic)

This is one of the people that Paul Krugman deems to be dedicated to the pursuit of truth through science (as opposed to revelation).

If so, I am laughing at the "superior" intellect that she and thousands of my fellow academics display on a day to day basis. What a hoot!

Freedom for Canada

American Daughter has a tale of blogging courage that you all should read. It concerns the testimony at the ongoing Gomery Inquiry and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party. Information about this has been banned by the Canadian government on threat of arrest.

And while you are at it, check out the blogger's site: Angry in the Great White North; as well as Captain's Quarters to get the latest. This is big news in the blogsphere, and a roundup of links can be found here.

The free exchange of information and ideas is what makes a free society. I support Freedom in Canada!

Worshiping a Different God

You know, I was going to write a scathing critique of Paul Krugman's latest ridiculous column, but then I thought, why bother? The man is a complete parody of the Left's worse personality traits. He makes these sweeping generalizations about why there are no Republicans in academia and does he offer any EVIDENCE for his conclusions? Why no. Consider this:

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

Clearly Krugman --as one of the annointed elite-- need not be concerned when the revelations come from his own mind. He expects us to accept his lordly opinion as absolute truth. The only hint of actual facts or data in his editorial are in the academic reports he cites as documenting the absence of Republicans on campus.

I'm an evidence-based sort of person. This kind of thing annoys me. I am also an academic who happens to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from HRH Krugman.

I wonder how this would have gone over if "women" or "blacks" were substituted for the word "Republican"?

In fact, let me substitue those words in for "Republican", and see what you think:

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that women and blacks make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?

Liberals see it as compelling evidence of sex and racial bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "affirmative action" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting diversity. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.

Claims that sexual and racial bias keeps women and blacks off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find women and blacks in the minority at elite universities show that they are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?

One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads women to exist in greater numbers as homemakers and blacks as basketball stars. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to staying at home or to sports is likely to be somewhat less scholarly than average, even in engineering. (Emphasis indicates where the words are substituted in the original)

Now does it sound more familiar?

It's the same old racism and sexism disguised as academic tripe that we've come to expect from the Krugmans of the world, who believe truth should be determined by THEIR revelations, not real research; and who show only contempt for anyone outside their elite circle.

Sadly, this is neither "scholarship" nor "science", but only a thinly disguised religion in its own right--focused on the worship of a different god.

UPDATE: The Corner's Stanley Kurtz has some interesting comments.

One More Time!

GM's Corner is going for a threepeat as King of the Blogs! Let us all go over and vote for the guy, then he can retire and live happily ever after! No, seriously, he definitely deserves it and I am happy to vote for him, especially since he regularly reads this blog. His competetion is strong, so all help will be appreciated. LONG LIVE THE KING!

Is There Evidence of Life at NASA?

Sure, by all means; of course. Let's put an end to one of the most successful and innovative exploration programs ever conceived by NASA. It is an old and presumably useless program--even though it has given us our first up-close look at many planets in our solar system. Like the energizer bunny of space, Voyager keeps on going and producing not only real scientific data, but also gorgeous and inspiring pictures of our universe. But NASA needs to set up the hundreds of committees and levels of bureaucracy necessary for a new space initiative, so that they can thoroughly screw up future space endeavors like they have the Shuttle Program. So, Voyager must be axed now--even before the spacecraft leaves the solar system! Hey! It has only taken 28 years to get as far from Earth as it is now--no big deal. We can do it again later!

Sometimes I wonder if there is any evidence of life at NASA--or if the people running the place are in a persistent vegetative state?

In a cost-cutting move prompted by President Bush's moon-Mars initiative, NASA could summarily put an end to Voyager, the legendary 28-year mission that has sent a spacecraft farther from Earth than any object ever made by humans.

The probable October shutdown of a program that currently costs $4.2 million a year has caused consternation among scientists who have shepherded the twin Voyager probes on flybys of four planets and an epic journey to the frontier of interstellar space.

"There are no other plans to reach the edge of the solar system," said Stamatios Krimigis, a lead investigator for the project since before its launch in 1977. "Now we're getting all this new information, and here comes NASA saying, 'We want to pull the plug.' "

Of course, NASA is blaming the fact that their budget is going to be cut in 2006, but with a cost of $4.2 Million it seems like an incredibly stupid thing to cut one of the most successful programs and ...do what? Waste more money sending a bunch of people up in low-earth orbit with nothing to do? This is the sort of thing that used to drive me crazy about NASA when I worked there. They are so insulated from the real world that they haven't a clue about what ordinary people respond to. They are desperate for public attention, but most of the time are so mind-numbingly boring and uncreative in their press releases and general public relations that they could discover the ruins of an ancient civiliztion on the Moon and describe it as "Golly gee whiz, isn't that something over there in that crater?"

I don't mean to be cruel, but why in heaven's name don't they ever get someone intelligent and exciting running that organization? Someone who can communicate the incredible wonders that are out there waiting to be explored; the incomparable and elegant beauty of space? Why can't they find someone who is just a teensy bit interested in "going where noone has gone before" instead of trying to go "faster, cheaper, better" and ending up going nowhere?

The US Space Program is dying of terminal boredom and lack of vision. Cancelling Voyager is just another symptom of that agonizingly slow and painful death.

Thinking About Unintended Consequences

Megan McArdle who writes as Jane Galt at Assymetrical Information has an extremely interesting and thoughtful post on the Gay Marriage issue titled "A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other" (hat tip: Instapundit).

She approaches the entire debate from a unique and non-hysterical perspective, taking a rather balanced look at the arguments from a legal and economic perspective.

However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. "I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted."

They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.

Let me take three major legal innovations, one of them general, two specific to marriage.

The first, the general one, is well known to most hard-core libertarians, but let me reprise it anyway. When the income tax was initially being debated, there was a suggestion to put in a mandatory cap; I believe the level was 10 percent.

Don't be ridiculous, the Senator's colleagues told him. Americans would never allow an income tax rate as high as ten percent. They would revolt! It is an outrage to even suggest it!

Many actually fought the cap on the grounds that it would encourage taxes to grow too high, towards the cap. The American people, they asserted, could be well counted on to keep income taxes in the range of a few percentage points.

Oops.

McArdle goes on to discuss two other changes in the law that proponents predicted would have minimal impact on marriage: welfare laws- which led to legitimizing illegimate births and providing an economic incentive for women to have children outside marriage and ended up "destroying" marriage in the inner city; and laws that made divorce easier--which led directly to a decreased perception of the value of marriage over time due to the slow, but inevitable erosion of the sense of committment to marriage vows.

It is important to state that while McArdle makes no judgement about the unintended and somewhat disastrous consequences she discusses, and merely notes them dispassionately; they constitute--at a minimum--a POWERFUL argument for both sides on the Gay Marriage debate to discuss rationally the implications laws legalizing Gay Marriage would have on our society; rather than make the routine and hysterical denunciations of the other side.

As a Libertarian, I found her essay to be a really good starting point for thinking about the issue. I don't particularly feel strongly either way on the subject of Gay Marriage. On the one hand, I don't believe the argument that "marriage is a fundamental RIGHT"; on the other, I don't particularly mind the idea.

But it seems to me that if marriage is the crucial social institution that both sides appear to believe it is, then it seems logical that we discuss as a society the possible reverberations of a significant alteration in our conceptualization of marriage. That did not happen in the examples McArdle uses and our society is the worse for it, trading one serious problem for another. Perhaps a rational discussion and reasonable planning can circumvent the most noxious unintended consequences--or maybe we can decide it is just not worth the bother.

Read the post and see what you think.

Nevermind

(Click to Enlarge) The fact that we hear no outrage and condemnation of the UN from the Left is very psychologically revealing. As this cartoon demonstrates so effectively, the defense mechanism of projection allows them to continue to blame "capitalism" (as symbolized by Halliburton in this instance) for atrocities their own ideology has brought about. A momemtary flash of insight leads to repression and denial: "Nevermind."

Islamic Website Comments on Pope's Death

Here is what an Islamic website says about the death of Pope John Paul II (hat tip: Free Thoughts):

What to say about a human being who possibly misled more other humans than any of his contemporaries? A taghut who promoted the worst sin, declared what is lawful as unlawful and what is unlawful as lawful, while people followed him? Should one weep for him? Indeed.

Muslims ought to recognize the enormity of the crime of disbelief and attributing a son to Allah the Most High.

In case you are wondering what "taghut" means, check here. This about a man who reached out to Islam.

Such nice people. Meanwhile not all in the Arab world refer to the "Christian Monk" in such terms.

Both Al-Jazeera and Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya transmitted live from the Vatican over the past few days, with blow-by-blow accounts from their correspondents at the Vatican, in Rome and at holy sites in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The two stations, along with many others throughout the Arab world, aired several documentaries about John Paul II and his various appeals for peace and dialogue between all faiths and civilizations.

They also highlighted images of the pope during his historic visit to the Palestinian territories and Israel in March 2000 when he was warmly welcomed at the Palestinian refugee camp of Dheishe, near Jesus's traditional birthplace of Bethlehem in the West Bank.

Finally, here is a comment by Charles Krauthammer on Townhall on the contrast between the "faith" of the Islamofascists and that of John Paul:

Under the benign and deeply humane vision of this pope, the power of faith led to the liberation of half a continent. Under the barbaric and nihilistic vision of Islam's jihadists, the power of faith has produced terror and chaos. That contrast alone, which has dawned upon us unmistakably ever since 9/11, should be reason enough to be grateful for John Paul II. But we mourn him for more than that. We mourn him for restoring strength to the Western idea of the free human spirit at a moment of deepest doubt and despair. And for seeing us through to today's great moment of possibility for both faith and freedom.

That about sums up a major conflict in our world today: faith and freedom that promotes the human spirit versus faith that glorifies hatred and death and seeks to enslave.

I'm Back!

Well, it has been a loooooong week and I'm finally back home and extremely tired. Chicago was fun; and Houston weather this time of year (and only this time of year!) was fabulous. But it is good to be back home.

Regular posting will resume tomorrow--unless something besides sleep comes to my weary mind tonight.

Carnival of the Insanities

Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Thanks to all who sent me something this week, particularly since I've been traveling and haven't had time to do my usual thorough search through the bowels of the blogsphere. I should be back to normal blogging this evening!

1. This device is for people who are too dumb to change the channel. They wouldn't be watching Fox anyway.

2. Rightwing Nuthouse beat me to it.

3. A "Bush-bashing jihadist organ" .

4. Profs on Spring Break!

5. Just a bit unclear on the concept.

6. Poetic justice? Well, maybe not poetic.

7. If they hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have thought it. Who has the dirty mind here?

8. Berger and Pop--a quiz. Rantingprofs has a good point.

9. Only in England.

10. Sometimes it's hard to find something nice to say.

11. The "Grapes of Wrath" --non-fiction version.

12. What is this lady smoking?

13. My advice? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Hell yes! Some people even agree with me.

14. Gee, this has got to be a little embarassing don't you think?

A Luminous Silence

From 1950 to 1966, Father Karol Wojtyla, the future Pope John Paul II, wrote poetry under the pseudonym "Andrzej Jawien." His literary career covers the time period from four years after his ordination as a priest up to the year before he became a Cardinal. (Source: here)

Her Amazement at her Only Child

Light piercing, gradually, everyday events;
a woman's eyes, hands
used to them since childhood.
Then brightness flared, too huge for simple days,
and hands clasped when the words lost their space.

In that little town, my son, where they knew us together,
you called me mother; but no one had eyes to see
the astounding events as they took place day by day.
Your life became the life of the poor
in your wish to be with them through the work of your hands.

I knew: the light that lingered in ordinary things,
like a spark sheltered under the skin of our days --
the light was you;
it did not come from me.

And I had more of you in that luminous silence
than I had of you as the fruit of my body, my blood.
-Karol Wojtyla, 1950


Pope John Paul II, 1920 - 2005

Today's Lesson: How to Ignore Allegations of Ideological Bias

Here's a fascinating analysis , comparing the lack of intellectual diversity in nation’s academic humanities and social sciences departments to the current denial in Professional Baseball--and neither look very good. (hat tip: Instapundit) Neither want transparancy or openness and subscribe to a "Don't Know, Don't Tell" philosophy, sprinkled liberally with an aggressive psychological denial that a significant problem even exists. Here is summary of what the professors want:

-Imagined reality, in which leftists and far lefists — despite myriad surveys suggesting their substantial overrepresentation on the nation’s campuses — represent a besieged minority in the academy. In 1999, for instance, District 8 candidate Ellen Schrecker doubted that if “America was to enter another Vietnam War,” junior faculty members would “express themselves as freely as we did in the 1960s.” Though the professoriate’s outspoken hostility to the Bush administration’s Iraq policy belied this prediction, the platform of District 7 nominee Jeffrey Halpern nonetheless continues to assert, “The exercise of free expression among tenured faculty is being radically curtailed in the name of national security.” Radically curtailed?

-Professorial privilege, in which faculty possess an apparently unlimited right to bring their political agendas into the classroom. After a 2001 job action by the California Faculty Association included calls for professors to insert pro-union statements into their course syllabi, District 1 candidate Susan Meisenhelder scoffed that administrators who protested the policy overlooked how “important university traditions such as academic freedom” allowed professors to infuse their courses with political material. In this vision of the academy, undergraduates, like administrators, cannot even publicize their dissent. In early 2005, Schrecker charged that students who criticized the imtimidating behavior of anti-Israel professors of Middle Eastern studies at Columbia University wanted “to impose orthodoxy at this university, often in the name of academic diversity.” Better, evidently, for universities to cover up classroom misconduct, especially if the professors in question are expressing the preferred viewpoint on contemporary foreign policy issues.

-Freedom from oversight, in which faculty members are responsible to no one and the goal of professional organizations is to conceal information that faculty ideologues find inconvenient. District 3 candidate Roxanne Gudeman promises to contest “unacceptable intrusions” that seek “to monitor and censor the political, ideological, and ethnic backgrounds of members of the academy and their teaching and research.” (Gudeman also champions ethnic and racial diversity programs, which, if nothing else, monitor the “ethnic backgrounds of members of the academy.”) District 10 candidate Michael Bérubé has committed himself to fighting “concerted and well-organized attacks on the professoriate,” including calls for an advisory board for Title VI area studies programs — as if professors, alone among recipients of federal appropriations, are entitled to receive public moneys without legislative oversight.

How does this relate to the current crisis in baseball?

But higher education, like baseball, is an institution whose survival depends on public support. Just as Mark McGwire sacrificed the public’s trust when he told congressmen that he would not “talk about the past,” so too will higher education’s public standing be diminished by continued claims that academic freedom allows the professoriate to ignore allegations of ideological bias.

The public will abandon baseball if the players don't clean up their act; and the same public will not be willing to send their children to be taught by university and college professors who arrogantly maintain that they also need no oversight; deserve unlimited priviledges, and live in a reality that proclaims them the "elite". Education, like baseball ultimately depends on the marketplace. For baseball, it is the marketplace of true athletic ability; and for education, the marketplace of ideas.

Who wants to go to unbelievably expensive ballgames to watch steroid-crazed athletes compete against each other? And who wants to spend enormous amounts of money sending their kids to elite colleges if they are just rubber-stamped as "little churchills"?

Read the entire article for some interesting insights.

Turning Over The Poker Table

Wretchard with the usual incisive analysis starts out looking at what is happening in Syria and Lebanon, and has this to say about the wave of democracy sweeping the world:

By way of context, Publius Pundit, a blog dedicated to following democracy moments all around the world, is filled with the rumor of mass rallies and political movements shaking the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and even North Korea. These developments are widely presumed to favor the United States; and in the narrow sense that collapsing empires play into the hands of the nation which holds the balance of power, this must be true. But first and foremost, they are evidence of dysfunction: proof that the Soviet model, Middle Eastern authoritarianism and to a certain extent transnational liberalism have lost their grip. In that respect the sudden and unexpected weakening of the United Nations is less the result of Kofi Annan's individual shenanigans than a symptom that the bottom has fallen out of the whole postwar system.

If this analysis is correct, the world crisis should accelerate rather than diminish in the coming years and months, not in the least because the United States seems to have no plan to fill the power vacuum with anything. The promotion of democracy is at heart an act of faith in the self-organizing ability of nations; it means getting rid of one dictator without necessarily having another waiting in the wings. It is so counterintuitive to disciples of realpolitik as to resemble madness. Or put more cynically, the promotion of democracy is a gamble only a country with a missile defense system, control of space, homeland defense and a global reach can afford to take. If you have your six-gun drawn, you can overturn the poker table. In retrospect, the real mistake the September 11 planners made to underestimate how radical the US could be. This does not necessarily mean America will win the hand; but it does indicate how high it is willing to raise the stakes..

The U.S. strategy has been to raise the stakes, overturn the poker table and see what happens. I know some people who read this blog refuse to consider that this strategy has merit. Some even refuse to acknowledge the successes and miraculouos changes it has wrought for the good. But change is hard, and if we want our children to be safe from the kind of enemy we face today, then something drastic has to be done and Bush did it.

So far so good.

Down in Houston

I'm in sunny Houston (71 degrees) for a meeting. I've been traveling most of the day, so I apologize for the light posting. I hear it will snow tonight (mixed with rain) in Ann Arbor, so I have to say I'm really glad to be here. Even for a BIG winter enthusiast like me, the cold and white stuff gets a little tiresome in April!

Posting will be light until Sunday evening. I manage to get up a few items in my spare time here.

How Hard Can It Be ?

61 days ago, John Forbes Kerry went on Meet the Press. Here is a transcript of a part of that appearance:

MR. RUSSERT: Many people who’ve been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians…

SEN. KERRY: I’d be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren’t even relevant to the record. So when we get–I’m going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn’t in the record and we’ll put it out. I have no problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim…

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will.

Here is how to obtain and fill out the Form 180 (The form is one page of instructions; and two pages to fill out).

FILL OUT THE FORM, SENATOR KERRY. How hard can it be?