The Rumors of America's Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated

Victor Davis Hanson thinks that the most recent predictions of America's demise are as incorrect as previous ones over the last 100 years:

During the Cold War, hard-core socialists pontificated that the (soon-to-collapse) Soviet Union was ascendant, inasmuch as it had realized Karl Marx's triumphant New Man who was reborn from the ashes of capitalism.

In President Jimmy Carter's days of “national malaise,” the state-subsidized industries of Japan Inc. were supposedly making us all wage slaves to Sony and Toyota — until the Asian financial meltdown.

Now a new generation of pessimists is warning that it is the turn of the European Union, flush with trade surpluses, a small defense budget and a strong euro. Larger in size than us, with a greater population, a better-educated youth and a supposedly more humane social net, will Europe gradually nudge the United States from its world pre-eminence? Or does the new Asian axis of 2 billion in China and India instead foretell American decline?

Some long-term indicators here at home are indeed worrisome. The deficit is again spiraling. Our trade debt is enormous. The dollar is weak. Materialistic Americans are buying more consumer goods than their global scorecard might otherwise warrant — all predicated on borrowed money from Asia that could be recalled with little warning. Few of the huge container ships from China, Japan and South Korea that dock in California return to Asia stuffed with American exports.

However, such pessimism is premature. Other indicators generally point in our favor. Interest rates are steady. Rates of real economic growth are strong. Unemployment and inflation are both low.

Without denying that there are real economic issues that need to be addressed, VDH goes on to discuss several empirical indicators that suggest we are doing fairly well. I would add that we are doing fairly well considering that we are in the middle of a war.

I grew up with many many stories of what life was like during WWII. The daily sacrifices that families made; the shortages they had to deal with. And the fact that for the first three years, things went badly on the battlefield for the U.S. and its allies. My grandmother told me how scared she was that we would lose the war to the Japanese and Germans. She escaped from Italy before WWI, and was particularly concerned about German and Italian fascism, which she despised. The thought of living under such oppression was dismaying to her, to say the least.

Yet here we are today, complaining about high oil prices (the lowest in the world actually); complaining about how many Americans are being killed in Iraq (the lowest in any war); while we drive our SUV's, watch our color TV's (one in every room); play our Xboxes and use our Blackberrys.

What have we had to sacrifice on a daily basis for this war on terrorism?

Except for our brave soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families here at home, what do we know of sacrifice? So many of us whine and complain; moralize and pontificate about the evils of war; violently rage and rail against violence; and oppose everything on some pseudoprinicple or another.

So, let me summarize. We are doing well--very well, in fact. There are both short- and long-term economic problems that will need to be addressed, but they are no worse than thsoe we've had in the past. We are making great progress, with minimal loss of life in the war on terror. Freedom is spreading throughout the world. Challenges remain, and there is much still to do to eradicate Islamofascism from the face of the earth. Finally, we have not had a terrorist attack in the last 3 1/2 years. Now is not the time to pull back. Now is the time to push forward with everything we've got.

As VDH suggests, the rumors of America's demise are greatly exaggerated.

Academic "Professionals" ?

David Horowitz writes about his experience giving a talk at the University of Hawaii and the boorish and hostile reception he received at the Department of Political Science, one of the supposed "sponsors" of the talk. I recommend you read the entire article. The part that struck me the most was the following:

The first thing I noticed was that the Chairman's office door was adorned with a large Anti-Iraq War poster. I have made a personal campaign against such political statements on professorial offices. Students go to theste offices for counseling. Such partisan statements create a wall between the professor and the student who it is his or her professional responsibility to help. They serve no purpose but to vent the spleen of these tenured individuals who are apparently so frustrated as to be unable to maintain minimal self-discipline in the presence of a captive audience students who -- if they disagree with the statements -- have no choice but to suffer them. I asked Jamie, who is a senior and whose father served this country in the military, if he had ever taken a course with Professor Hiller. When he said no, I asked him why. He pointed at the sign.

When we go to our doctors' offices we don't expect to see signs on their office doors making political statements attacking the war in Iraq or attacking those who oppose it. That's because doctors are professionals and have taken an oath to minister to all their patients regardless of their political beliefs. Why can't we expect the same professionalism and decency from our professors?

I've wondered the same thing. If I saw a political poster like that up in a doctor's waiting room, I'd leave that office as fast as my feet could take me. How could I entrust my life to someone who felt compelled to spew his political beliefs to helpless patients coming to him (or her) for relief of their suffering?

Likewise, how can we entrust the vulnerable minds of our young people to the rabid emotions of professors who want to indoctrinate, rather than teach those minds? Sometimes, whether you are young or old, it is hard to tell the difference between the two, but permitting a student the freedom to make up his or her own mind when presented with the facts, is a clue that being taught to think is the goal; as opposed to being forced to regurgitate a professor's thoughts.

True respect for the developing mind means you don't have to pressure them to think a certain way, nor would respect entail putting up posters to make sure they know what they are supposed to think in your department. Even the dimmest bulb is going to eventually wonder why anyone who thinks differently is automatically labeled a Fascist.

The definition of Fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of all opposition." This is exactly the behavior in academia that Horowitz and many others are speaking out against.

The protestor signs that said "No Academic Freedom for Fascists" is undoubtedly a rather blatant psychological projection on the part of a dictatorial academic regime whose leaders wish to completely control all ideas and suppress anything and anyone they don't like.

You might say that a psychological corollary to Godwin's Law is that whoever first brings up the whole Hitler/Fascism thing is conveying the structure of his own psychological defensive processes; more than saying anything of particular value about someone else.

A Breath of Free Air

Arthur Chrenkoff has a great column up, of which I will quote just a little from the Iraqi comment it contains:

Here's Saad, 32, sound engineer from Basra: "Iraqis are feeling better. They are breathing the air of freedom. They read, watch and say what they want. They travel, work and receive a living wage. They use mobile phones, satellite dishes and the internet, which they did not even know before. . . . As for terrorism, we are now beginning to unite against it and to defeat it."

Noura, 32, a computer engineer from Baghdad and a Christian: "While we lost security after Saddam's fall, we gained our freedom and a chance to build a new society."

Nada, 32, a government worker from Mosul: "We never imagined that the Turkmen community would have a political party representing them in Iraq, but this is happening now."

Kaban, 31, electrical engineer from Baghdad: "There have been many changes since the fall of Saddam's regime, but the most important change was that we feel free. . . . However, those who say that security was better in the past are completely wrong. It is true we did not have suicide car bombings in Saddam's era, but our homes did not feel safe from the intrusion of Saddam's security men, who came in the middle of the night to kidnap, kill or rape."

Waala, 25, a schoolteacher from Baghdad: "The Sunnis in Iraq do not live in isolation from the political and social circles of life, as many people outside Iraq seem to believe. Nothing has affected our relationships with each other--we face the same problems. This applies to Sunnis or Shia, Christians or Muslims, Arabs or Kurds. Unfortunately, the refusal by some Sunnis to participate in the elections was the cause of some political isolation."

Imad Mohammed, 25, a university graduate from Baghdad: "I am no longer worried about losing my dignity or my life. And I am also getting a higher income, like most Iraqis."

Now, go and read the rest of his roundup of good news from Iraq!

Adrift and Losing It

Meanwhile:

Since taking over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee earlier this year, the former presidential candidate has been quoted in newspapers making unusually caustic remarks about Republicans.

Dean has suggested that they are "evil." That they are "corrupt." He called them "brain-dead" during a stop in Toronto -- and while the Terri Schiavo case was still in the news. He has tagged Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) as a "liar." Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he mimicked a "drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh" at an event there....

"It's odd that Howard Dean says he wants to earn the respect of those who live in the red states, but chooses to not only attack their views but attack them personally," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said. "Americans want to hear an agenda, rather than name calling."

(Emphasis mine)

How sad it is that the Democrats seem capable only of calling their opponents names(since the Bolton hearings, you can add "mean" to Dean's list of descriptive terms).

Of course, by Democrat standards, calling Republican's "evil", "corrupt", "brain-dead", "liars" and "mean" does not qualify as being mean in and of itself, which would clearly disqualify Dr. Dean from any national position--but, ONLY IF HE WERE A REPUBLICAN!

Can you possibly imagine the hysteria of the national press if, say Karl Rove or the RNC Chair were to label the poor Democrats in such terms? Why, they would have to be heavily sedated.

But then what do you expect from a political party that is completely adrift, with no ideas that aren't 50+ years old? Like castaways on a desert island, delerious and starving for some--any!--intellectual sustenance, they are completly losing it.

By The Numbers

From the Associated Press yesterday:

As of Sunday, April 24, 2005, at least 1,568 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,191 died as a result of hostile action, according to the Defense Department. The figures include four military civilians.

The AP count is three higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated at 10 a.m. EDT Friday.

The British military has reported 86 deaths; Italy, 21; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Spain, 11; Bulgaria, eight; Slovakia, three; Estonia, Thailand and the Netherlands, two each; and Denmark, El Salvador, Hungary, Kazakhstan and Latvia one death each.

(Emphasis mine)

Meanwhile, in 2003 in the U.S. there were 42,263 traffic deaths; 42,800 in 2004. In Michigan alone in , there were 1,158 traffic deaths (down 10% from the previous year)
The number of U.S. Motorcycle deaths in 2003 were 3,661; in 2004: 3,927.

If we switch to Alcohol-related deaths, there were 17,013 in 2003 and 16,654 in 2004 in the U.S.

The Insurgents have in less than a year killed nearly as many native Iraqis in the new Iraqi security forces as they have killed Americans (a little over 1000).

Although difficult to estimate (for reasons discussed here) the total number of Iraqi civilians killed by "insurgents" is roughly estimated at 6000, while 16,000 are estimated wounded over the last two years.

Nothing makes a man more aware of his capabilities and of his limitations than those moments when he must push aside all the familiar defenses of ego and vanity, and accept reality by staring, with the fear that is normal to a man in combat, into the face of Death. --Major Robert S. Johnson, USAAF

If man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live.
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.--John Donne

An Outcome Devoutly To Be Wished

This is interesting:

Is it just old-age stiffness, or is Fidel Castro ailing?

Steven Aftergood, an eagle-eyed analyst with the Federation of American Scientists, notes that recent reviews of Castro speeches released by the CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service concluded the 78-year-old Cuban dictator has problems using his right hand.

The service, which follows Castro's activities very closely, first noted that the right-handed leader had shifted to using his left hand to gesture and shuffle cards in February, and in two speeches this month clearly had difficulty moving his right arm from the shoulder to the elbow.

Here's a news photo I found of Castro from February 2005, which would go along with the above.

Actually, from a medical perspective, one might wonder if the dictator might have suffered a stroke on his right side? Or is this just the result of poor medical care from a fall in October 2004, when he broke his right arm and left leg?

It will be interesting to see what happens in Cuba when this guy dies. As one lawyer succinctly put it:

Outside of Robert Mugabe and Kim Jung Il, it is hard to think of anyone who has willfully beggared a rich land and proud people more effectively than Castro. Even those regime adherents who dream of succeeding Castro must be getting to the point where they rediscover just enough religion to pray that his passing is sooner rather than later.

Kofi Annan Will You Please Go Now! [Reprise]

[Parts of this were posted some weeks ago, but I feel strongly that it needs to be said at least one more time. And, since it is my blog, there is nothing (except good taste, I guess) to prevent me from posting it again with a few updates!]

As we watch the incredible spectacle of John Bolton's career being trashed for being such a meanie and disagreeing aggressively with some of his subordinates; Kofi Annan--who presided over the biggest, most costly fraud in the history of the world; and whose lack of leadership and oversight have resulted in encouraging the death and oppression of innumerable innocents--is considered a decent guy.

Contrary to popular belief, the Volker Report did not exonerate the Secretary General (although he, himself seems to think so). While the Bush Administration is not exactly calling for Annan's resignation (the devil you know...etc. etc.); they have nominated someone who will be unlikely to make the Secretary General's life more comfortable. And, if nothing else, the Democrats' incredible hysteria about Bolton's nomination would seem to suggest that they believe the UN has become such a sensitive, fragile and breakable entity, that sending someone who might actually disagree with its policies would cause its ultimate destruction.

Meanwhile,there has been pressure applied to the Secretary General to resign, which he --so far-- has managed to bravely resist. Check out here, here, here, and here, for example. And here is an editorial documenting the reality of Annan's "leadership" (hat tip: Free Thoughts).

Kofi Annan may go down in history as the one man who has done more to lead the UN into total political irrelevancy and international scandal. He has presided over its descent into a reckless disregard for universal human rights by its consistent anti-American and anti-freedom policies.

In his defense, Kofi does bring a sense of humor to the job. Here he is preaching responsibility and accountability to the US. And here, in a blazing flash of insight, Annan notices that the UN "human rights" body isn't doing anything to support human rights! Ha. Ha.

So again, it is time to call for Annan's ouster. The UN has become a Kofi-Klatch that is now responsible for creating the kind of international evil it was originally formed to combat.

Kofi must go. Let me spell it out form him, since simple language is perhaps best.(with apologies to Dr. Seuss and Marvin K. Mooney)

The time has come.
The time has come.
The time is now.
Just go.
Go.
GO!
We don't care how.

You can go to hades.
You can go ker-plow!
Kofi Annan, will you please go now!

You can go to Iraq
You can march with the Lebanese
You can go to Iran or Sudan,
But please go. Please!

We don't care.
You can take a hike.
You can go on a political retreat if you like.
If you like you can go visit Kojo in a zoo.
Jut go, go, GO!
Please do, do, DO!

Kofi Annan, we don't care how.
Kofi Annan, will you please GO NOW!

We said GO and GO we shout....
The time has come.
SO...
Kofi, get OUT!

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! This has been a week of rare idiocy. 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. Vatican Shocker!

2. Here's one reason to really like the new Pope. And here's another.

3. Bill Gates, Muslim imposter? Google insanities.

4. Top 10 Reasons why Saudi women can't vote.

5. #4 above is funny. This is not.

6. Israeli dogs detained. I had a dog once who was much smarter than the police in this story.

7. Soon to be published: Ward Churchill for Dummies. Or was it Dummies for Ward Churchill? I forget.

8. A disease that kills journalistic integrity? It must be an epidemic. And here. And here.

9. This cell phone craze has really gone too far!

10. Would the term "poetic justice" have an application here?

11. Government pork. The real thing.

12. The elephant in the room...er..city.

13. News stories passing like ships in the night.

14. Cue the Imperial theme music.

15. A most ingenious paradox.

16. His ontology, his telos, his raison d’etre, his essential nature has been taken away....

17. More trashing of subordinates.

18. Overreacting? Ya think?

19. Guaranteed not to offend anyone, and therefore meaningless.

Not Asking Questions

Ali at Free Iraqi wonders why Arabs and Muslims don't ask enough questions:

I think one of the main problems in Arab-Muslim communities is that the vast majority from the illiterate to even highly educated people do not ask enough questions. On the other hand, I've noticed (mainly through blogging ) that westerns in general and Americans in particular always have so many questions to ask and rarely settle with one point of view and accept it as the truth.

But an important question here is, why Arabs and Muslims do not care a lot about searching for answers?

...Every time western scientists announce a scientific discovery, Muslim scholars kill themselves searching for a verse in the Koran that can be twisted to match it and then say, "Hey, we had it all the time and we didn't know!" and we have books and TV shows dedicated for showing how all these great inventions were mentioned in a way in the Koran, but we just didn't care to search harder!

'True Muslims' believe that Mohammed knew *everything*, and I've argued with many friends of mine many times about this point. I asked if they thought Mohammed knew how to manufacture a computer or to build space shuttle for example, and the answer was "absolutely". But he could not reveal all his knowledge to the people at that time because they wouldn't have understood it.

This makes one wonders why he was given such a useless knowledge in the first place! Most Muslims don't bother to answer this question and just think that Mohammed is perfect (which by the way is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Koran) and therefore he must know everything.

I asked if Mohammed knew the future and again I got the same answer. But what then makes God superior to Mohammed? The answer was a faked Hadeeth that does not address the question but it does state that Mohammed had this ability. And questioning that Hadeeth would be unacceptable for most Muslims because the Hadeeth is a basic corner of today's' belief for most Muslims and they simply can't imagine themselves abandoning it.

So all questions were answered already including the ones that have not been asked yet, so what's the point of seeking knowledge from another source! They don't know 1/million of what Mohammed and his descendants had and these not here to ask them. But they did left us what can give us some answers.

That's why those who study Islam are called scientists, and in some sects like Wahabism they're considered the only scientists. You hear the word scholars describing these people but the literal AND the actual translation (from Muslims point of view) would be "scientists".

This is why most Muslims' search in other fields of knowledge like medicine was always a 'blind' one in my mind. Because it did not improve or alter these researchers general understanding of life as a whole. I know many fellow Iraqi physicians, and very good ones in fact, who their knowledge did not make them any less superstitious or any more rational in their lives than illiterate people.

There's a lot more and it is very interesting reading.

The Perpetual Sore Loser Strikes Again

This really cracks me up.

A fuming John Kerry had "daggers in his eyes" after a fellow Democrat promoted Hillary Rodham Clinton for president — suggesting the 2004 loser is green with envy at a potential rival.
The flap was touched off two weeks ago when Clinton spoke at a Minneapolis Democratic dinner and Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) told the cheering crowd that he was introducing "the next great president of the United States."

Two days later, Kerry came over to Dayton on the Senate floor "with daggers in his eyes and said, 'What are you doing endorsing my 2008 presidential opponent?' . . . He was very serious," Dayton told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Clinton's office declined comment but a friend tut-tutted: "Boys will be boys, even when they are senators

Guess there's trouble in Democrat paradise.... But the best is saved for last:

Meanwhile, Kerry — and his outspoken wife Teresa Heinz Kerry — are increasingly claiming he was robbed last November and should have won.

This is taking poor loosership (is that a word?) to astronomical levels where it has reached galactic victimhood status. What an awful, awful man. I don't like Hilary at all myself; but if I were her, I would have the brakes on my cars checked regularly and be on the lookout for poisoned chocolates and such.

The Weather is Delusional

WINTER STORM WARNING? 6-8 inches of SNOW??????? I can't believe it is April 23rd! My daughter has a soccer game tomorrow. We were going to have a picnic outside. It was 80 degrees a few days ago. IT'S SPRING, isn't it?

WHAT MADNESS IS THIS?

In the Presence of Evil

I would like to thank New Sisyphus for his most recent post, which captures the contempt and anger I feel about the great, holy Islamic warrior-cowards. Who shoot helpless women and children; cut off the heads of people whose hands are tied behind their back; and murder wounded crash survivors -- and then keep a videotape record of their glorious deeds.

The nature of our enemy could not be made any clearer. From Beslan, to Manhattan, to the field in which the helicopter’s passengers met their doom, one theme is constant: the absolute cowardly and craven nature of the Islamic Fascists themselves.

Say what you will about the old fashioned German variety; at least they knew how to fight and fight bravely. These new fascists cannot kill anything that isn’t rendered helpless or unaware first. And, when they are fought head to head they more often than not fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness. Or commit suicide, which, despite what you’ve read at Daily Kos is not a sign of bravery but yet the ultimate in cowardice.

I am a psychiatrist and I couldn't do this work unless I really cared about people and believed the best of them. The only time in my career where I regularly encountered individuals that I could not connect with was during a several year stint working in a county jail. Not all the people there were bad--many were just plain stupid. But fairly regularly I would meet up with the ones who --well, to put it bluntly--raised the hair on the back of my neck and sent shivers down my spine.

Practicing psychiatry as long as I have, I no longer try to talk myself out of this kind of negative response to someone. No, I have learned over the years to trust my instincts in such matters. When I feel this way, I know I am in the presence of something bad. I usually then search for something to connect to in the people who stimulate that reaction--some elemental living thread that makes me feel that I am talking to someone who is also a member of the human species. I try to feel sympathy, even if my normal empathic response eludes me.

Likewise, I have forced myself to watch the awful beheading videos and other assorted visual evidence that the cowardly Islamofascists so narcissisticly make of their despicable actions. Only someone truly evil could even possibly imagine that such technological reproductions of their depravity could be seen by anyone with human DNA without feeling utter revulsion and outrage toward the perpetrators. I have tried to find something in their behavior that I could understand on any level. But these Islamic fanatics have taken me one emotional step further than even the serial killers I have interviewed.

In addition to the feelings I mention above, I have felt a growing coldness and an increasing sense of grim determination. When I watched today the al-Jazeera video of the injured pilot from the helicopter that was shot down being brutally murdered, after asking help to stand; his body riddled with bullets, while the brave soldiers of Allah the magnificent mindlessly shouted (off-camera) "Allah Akbar"--I finally understood. I had understood this on an intellectual level for some time, but the psychiatrist in me had still been searching for something-- anything--that would make it possible for these monsters to be able to live in a human world.

They are vermin. They feed off of death and destruction. They glory in nothing but death. Once maybe when they were children they were human. Now they teach innocent children to hate as they steal their souls from them. They are cowards and subhuman troglodytes; remnants of a medieval culture that should have died a thousand years ago. The complete, total and irrevocable extermination of this evil and its adherents MUST be the goal of anyone who is civilized.

I don't advocate torturing them or even humiliating them (maybe humiliating them).I don't advocate even hating them. It isn't a worthwhile expenditure of emotional energy. Just kill them without any great fuss or angst. And send them and their ideology to whatever hell awaits such pathetic and deformed souls. We owe it to whatever is great and good in the human spirit to do no less. And it is no more than what such creatures deserve.

When you are in the presence of true evil, you have only one real choice. You must face it coldly, ruthlessly and with unswerving determination and loyalty to Life.

Because in every way that matters, this is a battle of Life and Death.

But They All Ate Organic Rice !

Most of you are aware of the sudden backpedaling of the CDC on its OBESITY = DEATH meme. What you might not be aware of is that being UNDERWEIGHT causes more deaths than being OVERWEIGHT. Here's the scoop:

Apart from this huge downward revision in the numbers of people supposedly dying from fat, there are several things in this study which signal the end of any legitimate linkage between obesity and premature death. First, for the merely overweight with BMI's from 25-30 there is no excess mortality. In fact, being overweight was "associated with a slight reduction in mortality relative to the normal weight category." Being overweight not only does not lead to premature death, something that dozens of other studies from around the world have been saying for the last 30 years, but it also carries less risk from premature death than being "normal" weight. In other words the overweight=early death "fact" proclaimed by the public health community is simply not true.

Second, for individuals aged 25-59 the risks of premature death from being underweight are substantially greater than those of being overweight and they are also slightly greater than those of being obese. For those aged 60-69 the risk of dying from being underweight is much higher than from being even significantly obese, that is with a BMI > 35. Again, the total number of premature deaths due to obesity is 25, 814, while the mortality attributable to being underweight is 37, 746. If anything this points to an epidemic of not fat but thin caused death.Third, the increased mortality risks from obesity were concentrated in a small sub-section of the population, the morbidly obese (BMI>35), who comprise only 8% of Americans. Yet the obesity hysteria of the public health establishment consistently tells us that 65% of Americans are overweight and headed to an early death.

Fourth even the 25,814 deaths per year from obesity needs to be taken not just with a grain of salt but with enough to keep Chicago's streets ice-free for an entire winter. That's because the results are in many cases not statistically significant, though the authors don't mention this. For example, in the 25-59 year old group the confidence interval for increased risk for the obese with BMI's up to 35 is 0.84-1.72, meaning that we can't be confident that even for this group there is any increased risk of early death. The same is true for those with BMI's up to 30. Moreover, the RR figure -- the Relative Risk for dying from obesity - is, in the authors' words, "in the range of 1-2." This means that there is at the very best a very weak association -- notice, not a causal connection -- between obesity and death.

This is definitely NOT good news for the intrusive nannies who want to control what other people eat; nor is it good news for the a$$holes who hope to cash in on the current fast food victimhood trend.

Many obsessive dieters and exercisers that I have met over the years have firmly believed that they had discovered the secret of eternal life. They are encouraged in this belief by the gurus of thin and their legions. How sad for them to discover that death still patiently awaits them, even though they are thin and buff.

This all reminds me of several scenes from Woody Allen's 1973 movie, Sleeper:

Dr. Melik: [T]his morning for breakfast, uh, he requested something called wheat germ, organic honey, and tiger's milk.
Doctor: Oh yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak, or cream pies, or hot fudge?
Doctor: Those were thought to be unhealthy. Precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.

and, my favorite:

Dr. Orva: You must understand that everyone you know in the past has been dead nearly two hundred years.
Miles Monroe: But they all ate organic rice!

The Council Has Spoken !

This week's Best Post Winners are up at the Watcher of Weasel's site! They are truly a great collection to read, so I urge everyone to check them out.

Here are the winners:

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place: Founding Brother Right Wing Nut House
(a great history of Paul Revere, and the truth about his famous ride)

Tied for Second Place: Dean Promises to Use Dead Woman as Political Tool. Media Yawns. The Sundries Shack; and,

Narcissism and Society: Part I - The Psychology of the Self Dr. Sanity
(I'm starting to get an inferiority complex--this must be the fourth week in a row that I've come in second!)

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place: A Change in Tactics Terrorism Unveiled

Second Place: Unholy Alliance: Mubarak & the Muslim Brotherhood Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Congratulations to all the great winners this week!

Oh, and by the way, the Watcher has a seat opening on the Council, and is looking for a few good blogs. Go over to the site and let him know if you are interested.

A Compass In The Heart

Peggy Noonan describes in real life something I described in theory in my three-part essay on Narcissism and Society. She writes about why she thinks people streamed out of building and ran to St. Peter's Square when they heard the bells ring announcing the selection of a new Pope:

Why did they run? Why did this ancient news--"We have a pope"--representing such irrelevant-seeming truths and such an archaic institution--send them running?

Why did they gather? Why did they have to hear?

The faith is dead in Europe, everyone knows that. So why did they come?
You say, "They just wanted to be there. It's history. People are experience junkies. They wanted to take pictures with their cell phones."

That would be true of some. But why did so many weep as the new pope came out? Why did they chant "Benedict, Benedict" as he stood at the balcony? Why were they jubilant?

Why were so many non-Catholics similarly moved? And why in America, where the church is torn in divisions, did people run to the TV and the radio when word spread?

People are complicated. You can hit distracted people with all the propaganda in the world, you can give it to them every day in all your media, and sometimes they'll even tell pollsters they agree with you. But something is always going on in their chests. Some truth is known there; some yearning lives there. It's like they have a compass in their hearts and turn as they will, this way and that, it continues to point to true north.

We want a spiritual father. We want someone who stands for what is difficult and right, what is impossible but true. Being human we don't always or necessarily want to live by the truth or be governed by it. But we are grateful when someone stands for it. We want him to be standing up there on the balcony. We want to aspire to it, reach to it, point to it and know that it is there.

Because we can actually tell what's true.

We can just somehow tell.

In Narcissism and Society: Part I, I wrote:

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.

Too many people in our cynical society imagine they can get through life with only the former and ridicule and reject the latter. Schools glorify self-esteem as if it is the only essential ingredient in producing a "healthy" child (see here for an opposing view). Self-esteem is indeed essential, but humans require meaning in their life--they yearn for it desperately; and if no meaning is forthcoming, then self-esteem is hard-pressed to get you through, as important as it is.

I should make a disclaimer at this point. I am NOT a religious person. I was raised as a Catholic and was very religious as a teen, when I tried to bargain with God about my parent's marriage. He didn't come through; and I'm afraid to say my faith foundered. And yet....When I go sometimes to church with my husband and the Boo, I find I cannot get through mass without choking up; the tears flow continuously--even at the joyful parts. I recognize this as an breach in my defenses that demonstrate my hidden, but intense desire to believe in God. As Noonan suggests, it is as if a compass in my heart tells me that this way is true--and I know I should go in the direction it points.

The reasons I have never given into the desire are complicated and deeply personal and I won't share them with you as I'm not entirely sure I understand myself.

But getting back to my point--healthy Narcissism necessary suggests to us that we require meaning outside of the "Self" for optimal fulfillment in our lives. Many things can make-up this void: God, Religion, Ideology, Charismatic people; drugs--almost anything can take on the role of the Ideal. But traditionally, religion came into being primarily to serve this purpose for humanity. We want a spiritual father.... Someone who will take the place of that "perfect other" most of us experienced as infants. Someone who completely understands us and each and every one of our needs; someone who accepts and loves us unconditionally.

Unfortunately, sometimes when we follow that compass in the heart we are led to the dark side of the human soul. To a place where our "god" justifies the most unbelievable evil and dehumanizes us in the name of our faith. Death becomes stronger and more important than life in this place.

But sometimes....sometimes...the compass points us to a place like no other. Where the incredible greatness of the human spirit is free and anything is possible.

That is why the tears come to my eyes when I contemplate God. That is why I become choked up when I see something heroic and good. That is also why all those people ran to St. Peter's when they heard the bells and felt such joy. Because for just a brief moment--on that balcony--they knew they would catch a glimpse of the wonderful place so deeply hidden in their soul.

Throw It Out The Window !

I absolutely love this post at Polipundit: "Maserati Capitalism" from yesterday; about some of the joys of capitalism. The post concludes with a great quote from a Jonah Goldberg column:

Well, let’s examine how poor people are doing in America:

The typical “poor” American, according to census data, has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a VCR and a color TV. It should go without saying -but usually doesn’t -that in, say, 1960, someone who had a color TV, a refrigerator, air conditioning and a car would not be considered poor....

Here’s how relative our understanding of poverty is: The average poor person in America is richer than many entire villages in Africa or Asia, where they still have no phones, refrigerators, and very little food.

Many on the left -particularly those still in a Marxist haze -reject the idea that poverty should be viewed in absolute terms. But when you think about it, they have to. If we all agreed that many of the poorest people in America live with the material prosperity -cars, phones, air conditioning, the caloric intake of a Roman emperor -we associated with millionaires just a few generations ago, most of the liberal agenda would have to go out the window.

In the spirit of H.L. Mencken--who defined Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be happy"--see previous post--one could define the "liberal agenda" (which has a strong Puritan-streak, since all those do-gooders know what is best for everyone) as the "haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be making the wrong choices in their life!"

I say throw the liberal agenda out the window, and as Miss Frizzle (of the Magic School Bus)series says, "Take chances,... make mistakes, and get messy!" In other words, enjoy life!

Nothing To Do With Justice

Dymphna explains Shar'ia over at the Gates of Vienna - "By the Book":

Shar'ia, Islamic law, is concerned with three ideas: punishment, prevention by example, and retaliation. Rehabilitation is no more a part of the judicial vocabulary than, say, the word "democracy," unless one considers fear of the consequences a type of rehabilitation.

Read on. If you dare.

A REALLY Boring Day

Well, it has been a boring day, so I HAD to do something to liven it up (see previous post). I also took this ridiculous, geeky quiz that Ace linked to find out what kind of polyhedron I am (do you begin to understand how desperate I was?). Here are my results:




You are the large, round, friendly d20! (You probably didn't know this, but the shape of the twenty-sided die is called an Icosahedron.) You are the friendly, outgoing, outspoken, leader of friends. You are often looked up to, even though you don't normally deserve it. Most other types secretly wish they were you, and you'd give them tips on how, if only you had a clue yourself. Your charisma is often all you need, but you have your occasional moments of brilliance as well--just never when it's actually needed. You are the all-around good guy, a dependable chum, a respectable foe, and an inspiration to those who need one. Who says you can't get by on a smile and good looks alone?

Take the quiz at dicepool.com

Now see if you can do better!

I AM THE QUEEN OF THE WORLD! LOOK UPON ME AND DESPAIR !

Two of the healthiest psychological defense mechanisms are SUBLIMATION (transformation of negative emotions or instincts into positive actions, behavior, or emotion) and HUMOR (overt expression of ideas and feelings --especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about--that gives pleasure to others).

BOY OH BOY! HAVE I FOUND THE PERFECT WAY TO COMBINE THE TWO AND FEEL GREAT PLEASURE WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CAUSING THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE I DESPISE!

(Oh, I forgot that FANTASY is also involved!)

This wonderful site, called NetDisaster lets you type in the address of any website that you'd like to punish, or whose destruction would bring you bliss and delight, or just fun. You can even choose your disaster--meteors, Mars Attacks, floods, vermin infestation--and many more. Choose one, then choose another! You can make the site you target for destruction suffer from any of these over and over and over again.

I did it already to the Democratic Underground; Daily Kos; Noam Chomsky's, Paul Krugman's and Juan Cole's websites; the home page for several major Universities. I'm saving Maureen Dowd till later. As advertised, it was pure BLISS!

Yes, Yes. This is childish. This is petty. This is very immature. This is cool. This is also fun and completely harmless. Enjoy!

Pro-Democracy Students in Iran Need Your Help !

Stefania at Free Thoughts asks you to help the Iran Student Movement! This is a group of pro-Democracy advocates, opposed to the terrorist regime of the mullahs in Iran. I have linked to them in my sidebar for some time, but they recently lost their web host and need money to continue.

I can't think of a better way to support the spread of Democracy in the world. Go to Stefania's site and read more about how to help.

Liberty is NOT Slavery

In George Orwell's best known book,1984 ,we are introduced to "doublethink" and "newspeak" which have been combined in modern usage into "doublespeak". Basically the meaning of "doublespeak" is: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth. Orwell's examples in the book are the mottos:
Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom

This use of words to mean their opposite is usually a deliberate--and effective--way to be unobtrusive about your desire to make people believe something that isn't true. Even if the juxtaposition of the words makes an oxymoron, it is touted as a new "breakthrough" in understanding.

For example, I was completely taken aback when I ran across this site proclaiming Noam Chomsky as a "Libertarian Socialist". And then I noticed in Pejman's Yousefzadeh's TCS column on "Choice and its Enemies" discussed the phrase "libertarian paternalism" which is the term some are using to limit freedom of choice. Here is an excerpt from that excellent column:

H.L. Mencken famously defined Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be happy." Being a libertarian-conservative means being possessed of the haunting fear that someone somewhere is itching to play busybody on a level one might have once thought was inconceivable.

That fear becomes justified when one reads articles like this one by the New York Times ("Choice is Good, Yes, No or Maybe?"), which informs us that there is a movement afoot to limit our choices as consumers and citizens. You see, the fear is that we may not have the capacity to "choose properly" or that we may simply "refuse to choose." As a result, "government should limit people's choices. That is, choose for them." This is because "More choice can be worse than less choice," according to Columbia University psychologist Sheena Iyengar.

Given that the article begins by informing us that "choice has claimed a prominent new position as a policy tool: the prescription for everything from improving public schools to paring bloated health care costs to saving Social Security," one can be forgiven for suspecting that this new effort to limit the choices of the citizenry by advancing the premise that the citizenry does not have the capacity to "choose properly" is a political effort designed to take various and sundry policy options -- like "improving public schools" through increased school choice of "saving Social Security" through the introduction of greater personal choice -- off the table. Two advocates of the effort to limit choice -- Richard Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago and Cass Sunstein, who teaches at the University Of Chicago Law School -- even have a name for this nascent busybody program; "libertarian paternalism." "Libertarian paternalism," according to Professor Thaler, is based on the belief that "[p]eople have to know what their preferences are and they have to know how the options they have map onto their preferences."

It takes an incredible amount of chutzpah to advocate this kind of anti-choice movement while claiming that there is anything "libertarian" about it.

Chutzpah is too kind a word for this sort of language abuse. This is Doublespeak--the worse kind of PROPAGANDA. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead and to disguise the real motives of the speaker. If you link the idea of socialism with liberty enough; or the idea that making choices for people's own good is a form of freedom--some people may actually begin to believe that socialism and paternalism are aspects of LIBERTY. Let us be clear. They are not. They will never be.

But by saying the two words together, the speaker hopes to disguise his real agenda. And do you imagine that his real agenda is to actually increase freedom for the individual? No? I don't either.

The Blessings of Liberty

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."- Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the greatest documents in world history. Because of it, a fledgling country, devastated by war with the world's greatest power at the time, was able to become itself a great world power and a beacon of Liberty to people from around the globe. That this fledgling country still has the greatest freedom and productivity among all countries is a remarkable achievement of this Constitution and its writers, who envisioned a land where an indvidual's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness was a given.

Recently, Yale Law School hosted a conference "bringing together leading figures in American law to catalyze debate among progressives about the Constitution's future". Basically the goal of this conclave was simply to change the Constitution to conform to the agenda of the Left.

John Hinderaker (of Power Line) has a column in the Weekly Standard that discusses what went on in that conference (read the entire piece): "What Liberals Want". Here's an excerpt, but you should read the whole thing if you want to get a flavor of the kind of changes they are aiming for:

The left makes no secret of its intentions where the Constitution is concerned. It wants to change it, in ways that have nothing to do with what the document actually says. It wants the Constitution to enshrine its own policy preferences--thus freeing it from the tiresome necessity of winning elections. And how will the Constitution be changed? Through a constitutional convention, or a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures? Of course not. The whole problem, from the liberal perspective, is that they can't get democratically elected bodies to enact their agenda. As one of the Yale conference participants said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?" The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation.

LGF also has some comments on this convention, and points out that it was funded primarily by George Soros. Of course, as you would expect the Leftists at the Daily Kos call the agenda of this a conference "delicious".

How delicious for Leftist ideology it would be if the United States of America didn't exist! If, in its incredible economic and political successes it didn't prove beyond any doubt that Freedom and Capitalism work better than any other system known to humanity; and demonstrate the moral, political and economic bankruptcy of all those "ideal" societies that promise a human paradise, but provide only mass graves.

Clearly they can't make the U.S. go away, so the next best thing is to work to erode the Constitution--or if possible--to make it reflect their own ideology!

If they succeed in doing so, then the blessings of Liberty will no longer be ours, and will surely be absent for our posterity.

Chrenkoff Scoops the Media--Again

From Chrenkoff:
Our special correspondent and translator Haider Ajina wants you to know about a new opinion poll from Iraq. It was published in the April 18 edition of Iraqi Arabic newspaper "Almidhar". 778 Baghdadis were asked:

"Do you support the pull out of foreign troops?

"At once - 12.56%

"According to a future timetable - 81.80%

"Do not know - 5.64%

"Has the security situation improved since the start of the new government?

"Yes - 55%

"No - 35%

"No change - 10%"

Go read the rest of what Haider Adjina says in the Chrenkoff post.

I believe I failed to see this important poll and story in my newspaper. Obviously Chrenkoff scooped them and it will soon show up. Yeah, right.

God Bless

Apparently some people are extremely disappointed that the new Pope will be Catholic. Some are concerned because he is too old..

I'm waiting for the forthcoming comparisons with John Bolton and Tom DeLay. Especially since Pope Benedict XVI is pretty direct about what he believes (and is referred to as the "hammer" just like DeLay!); and in questioning the moral relativism of the world. He even sort of looks like Bolton, but without the mustache. So we're likely to hear some unkind remarks about his appearance anyday now from the gurus of the fashion elite. And even more about how blunt, hardline, and uncompromising he is. Some are even saying that he will alienate people from the Church, but I don't see it. What is more likely to alienate is giving into the attraction of the "popular" and embracing indiscriminantly what is modern, simply because it is modern. I don't think he will do that. He is the leader of the Catholic Church, after all. Not some political party trying to get elected.

God bless him.

Common Sense About the UN

I just noticed this column by Victor Davis Hanson , who wonders if it may not be time for the UN to make a radical change:

Well, here we are in 2005 with nearly 60 years of the U.N.—and more people have been lost in wars since 1945 than during World War II itself. Americans now distrust the U.N.'s record as much as they might applaud its idealism in theory. Why?

A half-century of Soviet bloc politics poisoned the body. Dictatorships that had killed millions of their own won an equal say to many Western democracies. Third-World countries were silent about the 80 million butchered by Stalin and Mao—and the millions more lost in tribal and religious wars in Africa and Asia.

Instead, over 400 U.N. resolutions gratuitously targeted tiny democratic Israel—without equal condemnation of its autocratic neighbors or commensurate concern for China's annexation of Tibet or Russia's absorption of the disputed Sakhalin Islands.

The terrorist Yasser Arafat addressed the General Assembly with a holster—to applause. Autocratic Cuba, Iran, Libya and Syria sat on or even chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. U.N. blue helmets could not do anything to save innocent millions in Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans and Darfur.

Elected governments replaced autocrats in Panama, Nicaragua, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq only because of American action—not U.N. resolutions. The multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food disgrace dwarfs the Enron mess but shares the same symptoms of influence peddling, shredded documents and funny insider accounting.

Any council is only as good as its membership; thus allowing a Sudan, Cuba, Iran or North Korea into the General Assembly de facto gave them as much legitimacy as a democratic Brazil, Holland or South Africa.

If the United States nearly 150 years ago fought a war to end slavery, why does the U.N. still welcome in a country like Sudan that will not? Many delegates vote only when they come to the U.N. They would never offer their own people the same rights that their spokesmen take for granted in New York.

Read the entire post and its proposal about where to move the UN. I certainly have my own ideas as to where it can go.

The Power of Victimhood

New Sisyphus has a great post on the culture of victimhood and its implications for winning the war on Islamofascism. First he discusses the victimhood culture:

As Shelby Steele has so eloquently written about, one horrific side effect of the otherwise righteous movement for civil rights and black emancipation in the late 1950’s to the late 1960’s was conditioning the wider population to view victimization as a claim to moral authority and, through that authority, political power.

The result has been an ever-expanding culture of victimization, where every small interest pressure group fights to prove and establish facts that lay claim to its special victimization, its unique suffering, as a means to power. Environmentalists focus on the harm done to our forests, feminists on rape, homosexuals on hate crimes, and child advocates on child abuse. Only by demonstrating that the wider culture—consciously or unconsciously—has victimized the target group can that group lay claim to the power of modern liberal guilt; and, through that guilt, legislation designed to promote or protect that group’s perceived interests.

The phenomena is so wide-spread, so common now, as to not require much in the way of illustration; any observer of the modern political scene knows all too well the horrible power of victim’s groups. After all, who can stand against them? Do so and you’re a horrible person who cares nothing for the suffering of these poor people. And so it goes, in an ever-increasingly ridiculous circus of victimhood.

Now, turning to the War on Terror and Islamofascism, we find that there is a REAL victim of oppression by our enemies:

As we have pointed out before, one of the advantages we in the anti-Islamist camp possess is that the Islamists, like the National Socialists before them, are so in love with their ideology that they are loathe to hide it. Instead, they shout it from the rooftops for all to hear: the goal is an Islamic world-state in which clerics of Islam will rule, Islamic law will be the only law recognized, people of other faiths will convert or pay heavy taxes in tribute and where a woman’s every move, every public and private act, will be the target of the most intrusive body of laws and regulations ever imposed on human beings.

Muslim leaders take no steps to hide these goals. For example, just today the indispensable Tim Blair forwarded a report of a speech by an Australian Muslim leader in which he said:

“Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world. Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."

Given the Islamist agenda, we anti-Islamists have a natural ally not only in approximately 51% of our own populations, but, incredibly, also in 51% of the enemy’s population. As recent elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention pro-democracy protests in the Islamic Republic, have recently proved, the Islamists have a huge, gaping weak spot, and it has double X chromosomes. Statements like the above cannot help but contrast the diffent deal being offered women by liberal democracy and Islamism.

YES! YES! YES! As I have pointed out many times in this blog, I believe that the key to winning the war on Islamofascism is Women's Rights. As New Sisyphus points out, the Islamists are so in love with their ideology, they regularly trot out women (whether under their own free will or not is a separate question)to advocate for the most atrocious laws and behavior towards women.

If the International Women's Movement were all it's cracked up to be, they would be shouting about this at the top of their lungs. There would be demonstrations by millions of women all over the world in support of freedom for their enslaved sisters.

Unfortunately, the Women's Movement is stuck on applying the vissictitudes of Marxist theory to their petty complaints; and deifying lunatics who preached male hatred; and are far too busy defaming people like Larry Summers (for having the temerity to suggest that males and females are...well different)to take much of an interest in advocating basic human freedoms for women unfortunate enough to be born in certain parts of the world.

Come on, ladies. LET'S ROLL!

Lost Civilization Found !

I studied Greek literature in college, taking several classes because I found it so fascinating. In my favorite class, the professor, who was Greek himself, would read to us in classical Greek as we followed along in English (the Richmond Lattimore translation of the Iliad has the Greek and English on opposing pages).

This is why my heart literally began to pound faster as I read this article. This is unbelievable, incredible, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!! I can't think of enough superlatives to describe this:

For more than a century, it has caused excitement and frustration in equal measure - a collection of Greek and Roman writings so vast it could redraw the map of classical civilisation. If only it was legible.

Now, in a breakthrough described as the classical equivalent of finding the holy grail, Oxford University scientists have employed infra-red technology to open up the hoard, known as the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and with it the prospect that hundreds of lost Greek comedies, tragedies and epic poems will soon be revealed.

In the past four days alone, Oxford's classicists have used it to make a series of astonishing discoveries, including writing by Sophocles, Euripides, Hesiod and other literary giants of the ancient world, lost for millennia. They even believe they are likely to find lost Christian gospels, the originals of which were written around the time of the earliest books of the New Testament.

The original papyrus documents, discovered in an ancient rubbish dump in central Egypt, are often meaningless to the naked eye - decayed, worm-eaten and blackened by the passage of time. But scientists using the new photographic technique, developed from satellite imaging, are bringing the original writing back into view. Academics have hailed it as a development which could lead to a 20 per cent increase in the number of great Greek and Roman works in existence. Some are even predicting a "second Renaissance".

Looking around the blogsphere, I note this response by Pejman Yousefzadah:
"OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD HOW WONDERFUL"
Exactly.

Narcissism and Society

All three parts of my essay "Narcissism and Society" are now posted.

PART I

PART II

PART III

Comments are welcome. I wrote it to stimulate discussion. It is by no means comprehensive, since in the interests of space I decided to leave out some discussion. My apologies for the use of psychiatric jargon. In all cases I tried to make sure that an appropriate definition of the term or phrase was made, but if you get confused, it is entirely my fault.

It is not my intention to claim that ALL behavior or ALL of the evil in the world is a result of Narcissism. What I do believe is that Kohut's Psychology of the Self might be able to help us understand our own proclivities and leanings in the sphere of human activity. The Self, as I have discussed it, is obviously a critical part of our essential human nature. And, as is pointed out in the essay, understanding human nature is essential for political, economic, and social institutions and theories to work in the real world.

It would indeed be grandiose of me to say that this synthesis is the end of the discussion--rather, I hope it will add to the discussion that has been ongoing for quite some time about the role of the individual in society.

Narcissism and Society - Part III

Part I is here.

Part II is here.

There is no predetermined time limit for the maturation and reintegration of the Grandiose Self and the Omnipotent Object into a Cohesive Self. For some people it can extend well into adulthood; and for some it is never achieved. For some, the inability to resolve either or both of the developmental lines will result in a full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder; others will form some kind of tentative balance between the two poles that is fragile and easily disrupted by events in his or her life or by relationships that reignite aspects of the Grandiose Self or the Omnipotent Object.

Many people never completely resolve all the tension between the two poles; thereby never reaching a fully Cohesive Self. While not Narcissistic Personality Disorders, such people have extremely dysfunctional narcissistic traits that continually interfere with their own and other’s lives.

FRAGMENTATION OF THE SELF

When the normal development of the Self is interrupted (i.e., the development of either the Grandiose Self earlier in life is disrupted; or that of the Idealized Parent later; or both are disrupted) for whatever reason, it results in what is called a fragmentation of the Self with concomitant Narcissistic Rage or Narcissistic Idealism/Awe -- or both.

Some of the typical expressions or symptoms of the fragmentation are:

(1) The Grandiose Self is dominant, and the individual exhibits:
• Continual claims for attention and admiration
• Cold and uncaring behavior toward others
• Sees others only as an extension of the Self to be manipulated and/or eliminated as needed; not able to relate to people as people or separate from oneself
• Grandiosity
• Hypochondria, or an obsession with individual body parts and illness

(2) When the Grandiose Self is repressed, the individual exhibits:
• Doubt in his abilities
• Low self-esteem and a sense of worthlessness
• Guilt –particularly if successful
• A feeling that one is not entitled to exist; or to be successful
• An erosion of ambition and personal desires

(3) When the Idealized or Omnipotent Object is dominant, the individual exhibits:
• Rigid adherence to a belief system/ Ideal
• Willingness to sacrifice people for the Ideal ("their own good")
• Others are seen as omnipotent and all-powerful or all-good
• Intolerance of mistakes
• Unforgiving of transgressions—especially those against the IDEAL
• Tendency not to acknowledge flaws in the IDEAL

(4) When the Idealized or Omnipotent Object is repressed, the individual exhibits:
• Cynicism
• Inability to believe in anything outside the Self,
• Vulnerability to “religious conversion” experience
• Tolerance of evil and a denigration of the value of human life

As I suggested previously, not everyone with a narcissistic injury to their Self presents to the Psychiatrist's office. Hypochondria is a common symptom of a defect in the Grandiose Self and can lead to frequent presentation to other physicians' offices (the bane of medical practice). Or, alternatively, excessive grandiosity, paranoia, and entitlement can land an individual in jail. Or, a need to find something, anything to believe in can lead to joining a cult or following a charismatic leader against their own long-term interests--even to blowing themselves and/or others to pieces for their particular god.

This leads (finally!) to some of the political and economic implications of Narcissism, a question that has interested me for many years.

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

All that has been written and discussed in Part I and II sets the stage for this analysis of politico-economic systems and the Self.

We have seen that the development of a Cohesive Self is dependent on two separate, equal and parallel developmental lines that arise originally from the biological and psychological fusion of the Infant and Mother early in life. If each of these lines are not interrupted in their normal evolution the Infant will eventually become an Adult with both narcissistic poles adequately developed and be able to function in the world in a healthy way—both in his attitude toward his own physical and psychic self; and in his attitude toward other human beings.

In some ways, the rise of human civilization from the cave to the present day has resulted because of attempts through the Rule of Law and social controls to set limits on the unrestrained Grandiose Self. This is primarily due to the destructiveness of the Narcissistic Rage generally associated with that part of the Self.

Because of this, the Grandiose Self has received a bad reputation philosophically, morally, and politically. The natural development of Governments and Religions (which ultimately are an expression of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Other side of the Self)have all too often attempted to ruthlessly suppress the Grandiose Self--much to the detriment of the individual AND the success of the particular society or religion.

In fact, despite the obvious truth that governments, nations, and religions are in a much better position to wreak far more systemized misery and death on human populations, it is almost always the Grandiose Self that gets the blame. As Wretchard at The Belmont Club pointed out in a recent post, a review of the 20th century, for example, shows that all the "people's revolutions" supported by the Left and purportedly for the purpose of "freeing" large populations of people; resulted instead in enslaving them and increasing authoritarian rule.

Without a political or economic framework that is able to incorporate what we refer to as "human nature" into its calculations, all so-called "perfect" societies and ideologies will at best simply fail in the real world; and at worse cause untold human suffering. With the best of intentions (this is perhaps debatable), the social engineers of philosophy, political science, and economics have caused so much more slavery, misery and death on a grand scale--that the grandiose CEO's of the largest corporations can be considered mere pikers by comparison.

When we talk about the individual versus society; or the individual versus the state; or indeed any discussion of individual rights versus the rights of a group, we are also referring to the psychological tension between the two poles of the Self. Any political or economic system that expects to succeed in the real world will have to accommodate that tension, and find a way to optimally negotiate the needs of BOTH sides of the Self--that is, they will have to take into account human nature.

A perusal of any list of economic systems will demonstrate that ALMOST ALL OF THEM are relatively extreme expressions of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Object. Almost all emphasize the group, the community, the collective, the nation, the state, or god at the expense of the individual. Examples are numerous. Socialism and Communism; fascism and religious fundamentalism.

The major exception is Capitalism, where the individual and the individual's needs are emphasized over the the group. Anarcho-Capitalism is another example, and it differs from Capitalism by its extreme rejection of the Idealized Parent/Omnipotent Object.

There are two general types of political systems--Freedom-based (Libertarian) and Totalitarian-based (Authoritarian)--and everything in-between.

The diagram below hypothesizes how the essential aspects of two poles of the Self, will cause the individual to be attracted to the political and economic system that best expresses the developmental level of their Self.


NOTE: This diagram is by no means all-inclusive or exhaustive, and is only presented for the purposes of illustration and discussion.

The political and economic system that is optimally compatible with the Grandiose Self and the Idealized Parent; and which maximizes individual freedom, while acknowledging the needs of others...is Democratic Capitalism. When combined with Democracy and individual freedom, Capitalism will provide the greatest measure of happiness and well-being (by encouraging a Cohesive Self)for the greatest number of people. It allows for optimal expression of the Grandiose Self and limits (but does not suppress) it by the Rule of Law. And Democracy limits the power of the state also by the Rule of Law and by specific protection of minorities from the majority. The optimum advancement of each individual person will occur by securing for the individual the greatest amount of mental and physical freedom compatible with the general welfare.

The unique aspects of Democratic Capitalism are not shared by any other political, economic or religious system. To the extent that other systems permit capitalistic endeavors within a fundamentally authoritarian system (e.g., China), individuals will be somewhat better off. But it is still not the optimal combination that maximizes the expression of both sides of the Self.

The healthy individual cannot ignore the Idealized Parent side of the Self either. Many institutions exist to provide meaning and purpose in life. Religion is one of them, but not the only one. Psychological health and a Cohesive Self require this pole of Narcissism just as surely as it requires the Grandiose Side--otherwise even the Grandiose Self will eventually despair at the meaningless quality of his or her life. This is why so many ideologies that reject religion become "religions" for their (true)believers; and why logic and reason cannot sway them from their belief, or make them see the horrible consequences of forcing their IDEAL society on everyone.

There are undoubtedly more ramifications to be seen by the application of the Psychology of the Self to Society. I do not pretend to have all the answers, nor do I believe this analysis is perfect. Narcissism alone cannot explain all of human behavior, let alone all of the evil in the world. There are clearly other developmental lines besides Narcissism that a truly healthy individual must negotiate.

But having said that, I do think that Kohut's ideas have a peculiar resonance to modern society and the current state of the world. When I see the explosion of Liberty and the demands for freedom across the globe; it is as if hundreds of millions of people are suddenly able to express a side of their selves that had been ruthlessly suppressed.

There is a Star Trek episode from the original series that I have never forgotten (I know, I know--but everything I ever learned, I learned from Star Trek!). It is titled "The Enemy Within" and in the story, a transporter malfunction results in Captain Kirk being divided into two versions of himself. One side is grandiose, aggressive, capable, clever, ambitious, paranoid and brutal; the other is kind, sensitive, empathic, passive, and depressed. The personality mix that makes Kirk an effective and capable leader and a balanced man has been completely disrupted by this malfunction. The so-called "good" Kirk realizes that without his so-called "bad" side, he is unable to muster any enthusiasm for life, and cannot make decisions or function with any degree of effectiveness. The "bad" Kirk is only bad without the "good" side; and the "good" side cannot live without the "bad". To be fully functional, balanced and psychologically stable, Kirk must have both both versions of himself united.

And so do we all.

Narcissism and Society - Part II

Part I can be found here.

Part III can be found here.
In the first part of this series, I presented some basic information on the Psychology of the Self and discussed the development of a normal, healthy Self, which is referred to as a Cohesive Self. This is the goal of the two independent developmental lines: to recombine the Grandiose Self with the Idealized Parent Image (sometimes called the Omnipotent Object or the Idealized Object) in a way that permits the adult to feel worthy of existing; have ambition, confidence and self-esteem; as well as to be able to have ideals and meaning in his life; and to establish healthy relationships with other individuals.

What we call Narcissism is a normal part of every human being’s Self. Without Narcissism, we are unable to feel good about either ourselves or other people. In the healthy adult, the Grandiose Self is tamed and harnessed to an appropriate set of ideals and is capable of perceiving others as separate sources of action, thought, and feeling. All humans must undergo this process of maturation, the goal of which is the Cohesive Self.

THE COHESIVE SELF

The Self is developed from a complicated interaction between (1) inborn capability and genetic vulnerability – which will predispose one toward or away from psychopathology; and (2) the environment--particularly the interaction in early years with significant Others, who can either strengthen and support the developing Self of the child, or interfere with its optimal development.

I am not going to talk about genetics, biology or physiology in this essay. This does not mean I think such matters are unimportant. Clearly every psychological process has a biological correlate in the brain. We are born with a set of physiological and biological mechanisms which make us more or less able to be able to function in the world. These biological processes-- for good or ill-- form the basis of our temperament and predispose us toward or away from specific psychiatric disorders; and also influence the way we view the world. But while nature has an important role to play in how we come to view the world, the role of nurture must not be ignored either. And nurture plays a crucial role in determining how the Self develops—i.e., how the child comes to view him or herself in relation to the environment and to other selves. In the end, nurture has an impact on biology(nature), even as nature (biology)has an impact on it.

Basically the child has two (and possibly more) chances to develop a Cohesive Self. The two chances are represented by Mother and Father (or the equivalent) who can adequately respond to the infant’s early needs; as well as the child's needs up to adulthood. As the child matures the environment must provide him or her with two things: First, it must properly “mirror” or respond to him as a whole person--not just a conglomeration of parts; and give encouragement and praise. And second, the child must be permitted to idealize his parents and then slowly over time (and not all at once) grow to understand that they are imperfect, but still good (or “good enough”). This allows the child to keep his ideals but to be able to subject them to reality.

Problems for the individual and for society occur when remnants of the Grandiose Self or the Idealized Parent Image are not fully integrated into the Self and then emerge or re-awaken as an adult.

NARCISSISTIC RAGE AND NARCISSISTIC AWE/IDEALISM

These two processes are flip sides of the same coin. Both occur because of breakdowns in empathy between the child and the parent or environment. If these breakdowns are not resolved by adulthood, then the adult will continue to act them out.

Kohut’s second break with traditional psychoanalytic theory was his concept of Aggression. Rather than view Aggression as a “primary drive” as Freud conceptualized it, Kohut believed that Aggression with its concomitant rage and destructiveness was not something inherent in the child, but occurs as a result of a failure of empathy on the part of the child’s “SelfObjects”. SelfObjects arepeople or things that the child perceives as extensions of himself, without independent thoughts, feelings or actions.

In other words, Aggression can be thought of as a response of the incompletely integrated Self to the failure of the Mother/Environment to acknowledge his needs. When this happens the child--or adult-- explodes in “Narcissistic Rage”.

One could say that the entire psychological process of maturation is one in which the child is able to form a cohesive sense of himself AND at the same time appreciate the separateness of the Mother and Father --and by extension, all other people. When this process is achieved, true empathy and benevolence toward others is possible.

A second, but equally important reaction to the imperfection of the parents can be thought of as Narcissistic Awe or Narcissistic Idealism.

Basically Narcissistic Idealism is a compensatory mechanism (usually later in the child's development) when an idealized person (such as the Parent) fails to live up to expectations (which inevitably occurs). Not able to adequately deal with this truth, the Self immediately transfers its idealization to a new SelfObject. Rage is kept at bay by focusing on the new person/SelfObject who now receives the excessive awe or admiration withdrawn from the previous Object.

Every therapist has had the "pleasure" of being the recipient of both Narcissistic Rage and Narcissistic Awe and this situation is referred to as “splitting”. The patient either sees you as All Good or All Bad, but never as simply a good-enough person who makes mistakes. Indeed, every parent experiences this with the adolescent child who usually come to the realization that their parents are not perfect (surprise!). The adolescent then searches to find someone who can fill that empty need. These days, their idealization (idolization) falls onto icons of the popular culture--music or sports stars. Eventually they get over these kinds of infatuations as they further mature.

Narcissistic Awe in its extreme form can be expressed as bizarre mystical feelings; hyper-religious awe or hyper-religiosity in general; as obsessive love; as total immersion in a cult or belief system—all of these behaviors can compensate for the fear that one is forever separated from that “perfect” Other.

Remember, we are not talking about appropriate admiration for someone, but an over-idealization that essentially treats the person as a “god” rather than a typical human being with imperfections and flaws.

Neither Narcissistic Rage nor Idealization is able to accept the reality that people can have good and bad qualities co-existing inside them. Neither see other people as acting separately from their own wishes or desires.

The diagram below summarizes these processes:


Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a clinical syndrome will occur at the extremes. But points A, B, C, D in the diagram signify individuals who have narcissistic defects--either in the Grandiose Self or in the Idealized Parent Image, or both. These individuals function in the real world, but their behavior will alternate between the extremes of Rage and Awe; and they will have considerable turmoil in their relationships; their work; and in their sense of themselves.

Much of the evil that humans do to each other comes as a result of Narcissistic Rage and Narcissistic Idealism. In the former case, we hear about or know individuals who manipulate, control, subjugate, hurt or kill others and they are able to do this because they do not consider other people as human or separate from their own Self; or because they are so enraged they are not capable of empathy.

We see stories of this happening all the time on the news, frequently exclaiming, "How could someone do that?" The ex-boyfriend who cannot accept that the woman has dared to withdraw her love and so must kill her (and often himself); the serial killer who does not experience others as really human. The pedophile who abuses then murders his child victim. Every petty criminal who believes implicitly that his feelings and desires are paramount and justify his behavior.

The second type of evil is more subtle, and it comes from the the opposite side of the Self. This side also does not see other people as individuals either; and instead sees them only as fodder for the expression of an IDEAL or as pawns for an Omnipotent Object (e.g., a dictator). People with this Idealizing Narcissistic defect (and by the way, such people are also capable of Narcissistic Rage when thwarted) completely reject the needs of the individual and enslave him or her to their IDEAL. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy and self-esteem. These "do-gooders" cause considerable human misery and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of the IDEAL or GOD.

Or, as C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

In Part III, I will discuss the fragmentation of the Self that occurs when adult individuals with narcissistic vulnerabilities (i.e. , those who do not develop a fully Cohesive Self) and the political and social proclivities that our essential Narcissism stimulates .

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. This is a little hard to believe. (from Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities) I guess all of us obsessive brushers are doomed.

2. Searching for life on Earth. Good Luck.

3. Millions of tons?? See #2.

4. These bills get no respect.

5. This gives new meaning to the term "pot head". (scroll down to the end of the article)

6. There are some places in the world where going to prison may be the best thing that ever happened to you.

7. More breathtaking hypocrisy from the Secretary General. What else is new?

8. Maybe he just loathes someone other than himself, Bill? I wonder who? Do either of them believe in anything besides themselves?

9. Socialist scholars protest lack of democracy. About time.

10. Mother of the year.

11. Priceless.(hat tip: Release the Hounds)

12. Sodom and Scalia? Sigh...no one's ever allowed to disagree anymore.

12. the first Lego Church of Christ. No, really.

13. An example of academic scientific rigor. NOT. And here's a like example of journalistic integrity.

14. Cybercheating, cyberdetectives, and cyberangst.

15. The secret life of the Pope's shoes. Really interesting.

16. These protesters are all wet.

17. Anger management ...for bloggers perhaps?

Another Example of My Grandiosity...

I apologize that it has taken me so long to finish the Narcissism and Society essay. It has taken longer than I first imagined, and it has expanded a bit so that now there will be THREE parts! However, Part II and Part III will both be posted tomorrow afternoon after a final edit in the am.

I'm sorry that it has taken so long; I'm sorry that it became so long; and I'm sorry...well, let's just say that my grandiose side got the better of me [note to myself: isn't this entire blog a monument to my grandiose side?] and I foolishly imagined I would be able to finish it fairly quickly and with ease!

Part I is located here, if you haven't read it or want to check it out again.

Thanks for everyone's patience and encouragement. And thanks for the great discussion.