Saturday, December 10, 2005

STOP THE DSM-V, I WANT TO GET OFF !

This is what happens when you confuse psychological defense mechanisms (which are descriptions of psychological processes used by all human beings as they cope with life) with a clinical (and presumably treatable) psychiatric diagnosis.

ShrinkWrapped has an excellent analysis which I refer you to.

I say this over and over, but it bears repeating: psychological defense mechanisms (which include some relatively primitive psychological responses like projection - the mechanism involved in most forms of racism, for example) are not diagnoses. The very dysfunctional ones might be conceptualized as a process of the psychological self that is somewhat similar to when the physical self experiences a fever.

A mild fever suggests that the body is coping with an intrusion into its physical defenses. Most often the fever itself becomes self-correcting, setting off a series of defensive actions that lead to a return to normal functioning. If the fever persists and becomes too high, it becomes a red flag that something serious might be going on and the underlying cause needs to be found.

It is likewise when the ego deploys a psychological defense (especially one that persists despite reality; or one that is severely dysfunctional and causes great problems in the person's life). We do not say that "fever" is a diagnosis. It is a symptom that when it doesn't go away makes us take action. A defense mechanism is also a symptom that suggests our psychological self is trying to cope with a disturbing reality. If an individual has insight and self-awareness (the ability to objectively observe and be conscious of one's own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and their meaning), then the defense mechanism can even becomes a valuable tool with which to understand our own fears and prejudices - just as a fever becomes the red flag that leads us to look for an underlying problem.

Quite frankly, the fact that some psychiatrists and psychologists want to make defenses themselves diagnoses concerns me greatly, since it suggests to me that there is a desire to control human behavior via pathologizing any behavior that goes against the tenets of the controlling authority.

Back in the 1980's the World Psychiatric Association condemned the former Soviet Union for doing exactly the same thing with their diagnosis of "Sluggish Schizophrenia" - which made opposition to the State's communist system a severe mental illness (see this post)

ShrinkWrapped observes:
However, if I may use a sophisticated Psychiatric term to encapsulate this idea: putting this into the DSM would not only be ridiculous but it would be crazy!

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which is the "official" listing of accepted Psychiatric diagnoses) already contains diagnostic entities which cover delusions (fixed, false ideas that do not conform with reality) and obsessions (preoccupations with ideas that limit a person's daily functioning). All of the examples of pathology mentioned in the article could be covered by diagnoses that contain such symptom complexes. On the other hand, once the DSM includes pathological bias, just imagine the fun the legal professional and the professional victims associations could have with such a diagnosis.
[...]
Between the Psychiatric profession's need to pathologize all forms of behavior (which tends to mitigate responsibility for selected, favored, victim classes) and the legal profession's need to make money off of any and every misfortune (which requires assigning blame for everything untoward that occurs, whether it originates from malice, misconduct, or bad luck), we are attacking some of the foundations of our society.


Instapundit sums it up nicely:
So when homosexuality was unpopular, it was a mental disorder. Now that it's popular, not liking it is a mental disorder. Evidence for either position? Not much. My diagnosis: How about we recognize a disorder consisting of turning intellectual fashions into pseudoscience? Seems like this is a case of "mental health" consisting largely of agreeing with whatever political opinions psychiatrists hold at a particular moment in time. Psychiatry, heal thyself.


Can "Republicanism" be far behind as a new diagnosis in DSM-V representing extreme bias? I expect not, if some have their way.

UPDATE: Sigh....Like I said.... It is instructive, I think, to note which side of the political spectrum eagerly anticipates this sort of perverted social engineering and control; and which side finds it oppressive and an assault on human freedom.

DOWN THE PARANOID PATH

I have friends who have expressed to me their fears that President Bush is going to imminently establish a "Christian Theocracy" in the U.S. Some of them have been saying this with great authority every since Bush was elected in 2000.

At first I tried to argue with them, pointing out that I saw nothing different in Bush's behavior or speech about religion than previous presidents. They would just respond, "Wait and see."

The truth is that they were convinced--almost to the point of paranoia--that a religious theocracy was about to be imposed by the Republicans. They would point to the "faith-based" initiative and to the Terry Schiavo case with great glee, as if somehow this proved their point.

They always had remarkably little to say about the real threat of an imposed theocracy by Islam--a religion, which unlike the Christian (or Jewish) religions stated unabashedly on a daily basis all over the world that they intended to impose their religion everywhere by either peaceful or violent means. This did not seem to worry my friends very much, because they were so intently focused on Bush.

Nowadays, when they state this fear (still with a straight face), I merely comment rather mildly, "Well, he better get on with it because he only has three years left in office."

I just recently read this article at American Thinker, about attending the White House Hanukkah Party; and it occurred to me that my paranoid friends might be reassured about the President and his perceived "excessive religiosity" and theocratic leanings.

A second thing that I came away with this night had to do with the role of prayer and study and the respect for religion in the White House. Many of those who hate the President do so because they are very uncomfortable with the role of religion in his life - that he is a born again Christian, and that he is not afraid to speak about his faith. Since President Bush’s belief system is very different from the secular progressive vision (that of the New York Times editorial page), and that of the elites who pledge allegiance to that vision, an increasing emphasis on religion by the President is seen as a very dangerous thing by these secular elites.

Some prominent rabbis have grown nervous that a new Christian tide emanating from the White House and the President’s supporters in the evangelical community will sweep over and change America (for the worse of course), since serious devout Christians are very dangerous people.
On line to get into the White House, I spoke to a rabbi from Maryland who has for several years conducted Torah study groups in the White House for Jewish employees. I suspect that the fact that this goes on is not widely known, and that it is a new phenomenon in the White House. The President has brought to the White House a respect for those who believe and pray and study, rather than a secularist’s scorn for religious observance. And this respect is not limited to Christian believers. The President held a one hour session with Jewish educators the day of the Hanukkah party. This was not just to light the White House menorah, but included a serious discussion of education issues, as well as Israel and the situation in the Middle East. As Scott Johnson related, the attendees were very heartened by what they heard. For the first time ever, the White House kitchen was officially certified as kosher for an event.

Great respect for ceremony and tradition, whether military or religious, is apparent in this White House.

I have never heard the President attack those who are not religious believers. He understands that this too is a belief system. And those who are not religious believers nor observant are not under pressure to become more religious in the White House. I doubt, though, that there is a New York Times study group in the White House just yet, though it really takes a lot of faith to believe what is in that paper. (NOTE: Read the entire article. The gratuitous jab at the NY Times is solely the author's, but I happen to agree wholeheartedly)


Sadly, though, it is very likely that even these observations would not reassure those who are already miles and miles down the paranoid path. They undoubtedly will continue to see what they want to see to the bitter end; because their distorted vision of Bush (and Christianity) is actually more comforting to them than truth (or reality) ever could be.

THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !

This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts. I'm proud to have been selected two weeks in a row for the honor of Best Council Post! Congratulations to all the other winners.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

"...Have a Great Time Dieing in the War. From, Miguel." The Sundries Shack

Second Place

Iran’s Nuclear Game The Strata-Sphere

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Murderous Peaceniks Seraphic Secret

Second Place

On Patriotism, Redux (UPDATED) Protein Wisdom

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site! They make for great weekend reading.

Friday, December 09, 2005

THE INCREDIBLE MATHEMATICAL KORAN

I am hoping this guy is in charge of the Iranian missile guidance or at least a researcher in their nuclear program:
Muhammad Rateb Al-Nabulsi: Would you believe, Mr. 'Alaa, that the Koran includes Einstein's theory? This was presented at the fifth convention on the wondrous nature of the Koran, held in Moscow. I am referring to the verse: "A day in the Lord's reckoning is like a thousand years in your reckoning."

The Arabs use lunar calendar. Now, it takes the moon one month to revolve around the Earth. If we want calculate how many kilometers the moon travels in each cycle, it is very easy. We take the center of the Earth and the center of the moon, and connect them with a straight line. The length of this line is half the Earth's diameter, plus half the moon's diameter, plus the distance between them. Anyone of our students could calculate this. One must multiply the two diameters by 3.14 – pi, you get a circumference, you multiply it by 12 for each month of the year, then you multiply it by 1,000 for 1,000 years...

Any high school student with a calculator could calculate the distance the moon travels around the Earth in 1,000 years.

The verse says: "A day in the Lord's reckoning is like a thousand years in your reckoning." Hence, the distance the moon travels around the Earth in 1,000 years is the same distance light travels in one day. If we divide this figure by the number of seconds in one day, we will get the precise speed of light 299,000,752. [emphasis mine]


I can't help noticing that the verse in question is shockingly similar to Psalms 90:4- "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

But even more importantly, light travels at precisely 186,282.397 miles per second; or 299,792,458 meters per second.

Close, but no cigar. But it does explain why I think this person would be an absolutely perfect choice for overseeing Islamic missile guidance systems.

This sort of scientific rigor reminds of the incident in the 19th century, when the Indiana state legislature tried to pass a law making Pi equal to a rational number (3 or 3.2). The guys behind that debacle must have been calculating the value of Pi based on readings from the Koran.

Who knew it could be so useful?

SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF BETELGEUSE?

Nutcase that he is, Iran's President has nevertheless given me a great idea! I think that the U.S. should cave in to international pressure and graciously offer the Palestinians not just a state, but an entire planet!

Perhaps Mars or Venus? Or maybe a planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse? Someplace dry and deserty where their population will have the opportunity to explode.

Think of the potential for them to claim their destiny and come closer to Allah!

And since the Chinese are poised to take the lead in the latest space race AND are on the UN Security Council (how convenient is that?)they could be designated as the country in charge of the Palestinian Migration! The Iranian Mullahs could supervise, and we could send them, along with all the useful Palestinian bureaucrats on the first ship to scout out the territory and do all the really important tasks necessary to set up a new society.

The thing is, I seem to remember hearing--or maybe reading?-- about something like this.

Don't worry, it will come to me.

PANIC

Norman Podhoretz in a forthcoming Commentary Magazine is simply a must-read: (hat tip: Power Line)
Yet in spite of these similarities, there is also a very curious difference between the American panic of 1776-7 and the American panic of 2005-6. To put it in the simplest and starkest terms: in that early stage of the Revolutionary War, there was sound reason to fear that the British would succeed in routing Washington’s forces. In Iraq today, however, and in the Middle East as a whole, a successful outcome is staring us in the face. Clearly, then, the panic over Iraq—which expresses itself in increasingly frenzied calls for the withdrawal of our forces—cannot have been caused by the prospect of defeat. On the contrary, my twofold guess is that the real fear behind it is not that we are losing but that we are winning, and that what has catalyzed this fear into a genuine panic is the realization that the chances of pulling off the proverbial feat of snatching an American defeat from the jaws of victory are rapidly running out.

Of course, to anyone who relies entirely or largely on the mainstream media for information, it will come as a great surprise to hear that we are winning in Iraq. Winning? Militarily? How can we be winning militarily when, day after day, the only thing of any importance going on in that country is suicide bombings and car bombings? When neither our own troops nor the Iraqi forces we have been training are able to stop the “insurgents” from scoring higher and higher body counts? When every serious military move we make against the strongholds of these dedicated and ruthless adversaries is met with “fierce resistance”? When, for every one of them we manage to kill, two more seem to pop up?

Winning? Politically? How can we be winning politically when the very purpose for which we allegedly invaded Iraq has been unmasked as a chimera? When every step we force the Iraqis to take toward democratization is accompanied by angry sectarian strife between Shiites and Sunnis and between each of them and the Kurds? When our clumsy efforts to bring the Sunnis into the political process have hardly made a dent in their support for the insurgency? When the end result is less likely to be the stable democratic regime we supposedly went there to establish than a civil war followed by the breakup of Iraq into three separate countries?

There has been one great exception to this relentless drumbeat of bad news: it occurred in January 2005, in the coverage of the first election in liberated Iraq. To the astonishment of practically everyone in the world, more than 8 million Iraqis came out to vote on election day even though the Islamofascist terrorists had threatened to slaughter them if they did. This very astonishment was a measure of how false an impression had been created of the state of affairs in Iraq. No one fed by the mainstream media could have had the slightest inkling that these 8 million people were actually there, so invisible had they been to reporters who spent all their time interviewing the discontented Iraqi Man in the Street and to cameras seemingly incapable of focusing on anything but carnage and rubble.

But the mainstream media soon recovered from the shock


Read it all.

Podhoretz is absolutely correct. Certain segments of our society are in a panic. I would say they are in the middle of a full-fledged panic attack. Why? Because if Bush's policies are successful in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East--these groups know that they will be frozen out of power for years to come.

Who would listen to the MSM after they have worked overtime in the last four years to make Iraq into another Vietnam for their own glory and power?

Who would listen to the wimpy Democrats who have whined and vacillated and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming piteously (and still are to this day) to do the right thing to protect our country?

Who would listen to the lunatic Left and the remnants of the old communist/socilist religions, who have willingly aligned themselves with the enemies of freedom, and hidden their murderous 20th century ideolgies under the cover of "anti-war" and "peace" slogans. The only thing they are "anti" is American. The only "peace" they want is a piece of the action when a new set of thugs come to power. They have thrown their lot in with the enemies of civilization itself, rather than to take responsibility for the enormity of the suffering and human misery brought about by the implementation of their political views over the last 100 years or more.

Oh yes. We have seen the true colors of all these sunshine patriots and utopian demagogues--particularly in the last four years; and the more we see, the clearer it becomes that their only motivation is a desperate, panicked desire to hold onto power--especially power over other people. As they hyperventilate and grasp at straws (expect a new accusation against the Bush administration to surface regularly as each one before is shot down with facts), they can see their power and influence fading fast. They have shown they will pay any price to bring America to its knees; they will advance any falsehood; and undermine any good.

Wretchard the other day suggested that we have already been victorious in Iraq, and I agree with him. The Iraqi people have stood up and made it clear that they want and deserve freedom and democracy.

Victory when it came, was both greater and less; more partial and more complete than expected. It did not take the European form of parades down the Champs Elysee, followed by a return to old and establish ways of governance. What the destruction of the Ba'athist regime did was reanimate long suppressed local and ethnic interests and channel them into competition through the ballot box -- with the occasional recourse to violence. Tremendous forces have been unleashed which critics of the war will point to as signs of an incipient civil war, but which supporters of OIF will describe as a newly liberated society feeling its way forward.


The MSM, the Democrats, and the Left are hoping that the spell they have woven to veil the eyes and cloud the minds of the public will last a little while longer(at least into the 2006 election cycle, where they hope to get back some of that lost power).

But their whimpering and weaseling; flip-floping and blustering is simply their pretzel-like way of waiting to see if Americans will suddenly realize that we have actually won the war; brought democracy to the Middle East; and derailed a threat to human freedom and dignity so severe and barbaric, it makes Hitler and his minions seem like second-class, second-rate thugs. In other words, they are positioning themsselves to try to take credit for any victory; while at the same time they are hoping for defeat since they believe that is the quickest way for them to get their power and status back.

Granted, they wouldn't mind a victory in Iraq if they could also have the latter outcome (i.e., the defeat of Bush and the Republicans)--especially if Democrats could somehow take credit for victory in Iraq. But they are perfectly willing to facilitate defeat in Iraq, encourage and enable the deaths of American soldiers, and ensure the success of America's enemies-- if that scenario will result in the demise of their most hated opponent.

In their hearts, they know that they deserve to be in power (it was stolen from them, you see); and they are in a panic because historical irrelevance is staring them in the face. They realize that their 20th century utopian vision is deservedly crumbling and crashing down all around them and its pieces will soon join the myriad of other anti-human ideologies in the dustbin of history.

All the clinical symptoms point to a diagnosis of an acute panic episode, brought about by an inadvertant--and unwilling-- exposure to reality.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

LET IT SNOW !

The presents are all bought and wrapped, and I just finished addressing all my Christmas cards. What can I say? I'm a Christmas fanatic and usually have everything done early in December.

We are expecting 7-8 inches of snow this evening, but I'm a happy camper and grateful that I don't have to go out. Although there's a lot to blog about (the craziness never seems to stop), I have taken enough abuse for one day and I'm going to take the evening off and catch up on my reading.

Unless something spectacular and/or brilliant comes to me tonight, I'll be back blogging tomorrow.

In the meantime, visit The Anchoress, Sigmund, Carl & Alfred, Beautiful Atrocities, neo-neocon, ShrinkWrapped , Assistant Village Idiot or any of the other wonderful blogs I have on my sidebar.

Oh, and you might go on over to Roger Simon's and consider his question, "Which side are you on?"

In the meantime, Illegitimi non carborundum . LET IT SNOW!

SPOILED BRATS

Thomas Sowell writes:
The idea that what I want overrides what you want has increasingly become part of our thinking, our policies and even our laws. There is literally a federal case before the Supreme Court over the fact that many colleges and universities refuse to allow military recruiters on campus.

Why? Because, as the academics will tell you, they are opposed to the military, either in general or because they think the military are discriminating against homosexuals or for whatever other reasons they have.

These academics have every right to be against the military, for any reason or for no reason.

If they don't like the military, they can stay away from the military, since there is no draft. But what they want is to keep other people away from the military, by preventing students from hearing what the military recruiters have to say, as students hear what recruiters from all sorts of other institutions and movements have to say on campus.

The reason there is a legal issue is that a federal law has been passed, saying that colleges and universities that forbid military recruiters from coming on campus are no longer eligible to receive federal money.

Academics are outraged. They see this law as a violation of their freedom -- including their right to violate their students' freedom. It is classic spoiled brat politics, based on the idea that what I want overrides what you want.

I'm inclined to agree with Sowell on the "spoiled brat" aspect of things. Freedom of speech is a paramount right; an essential freedom for the Left when it involves their right to be irritating, pathetic, revolting, and downright sick. They also get to decide what's offensive and seem to think that what they ban or forbid (on campus or elsewhere) is perfectly legitimate.

But when there are consequences the Left doesn't like that result from their taking a particular political stand (e.g., losing your federal funding for discriminating against a part of the federal government; losing your audience because the public doesn't care for political diatribes disguised as "entertainment") , then "spoiled brat" is precisely and exactly the word to describe their juvenile temper tantrums.

Free speech is great when it issues forth from their ideology; but when it is expressed by someone they don't like; or is something with which they happen to disagree--well, that's another thing entirely.

UPDATE: More "free speech" as interpreted by the Left. Honestly, who let them out of their playpen?

BUT, SERIOUSLY

Is there any sane person who could possibly take the UN seriously anymore? Consider this and this for example.

And, isn't it interesting that the Nobel Prize has evolved into a forum for legitimizing anti-US, anti-Israel harangues, as well as a mouthpiece for the appeasers and enablers of terror. This "noble" committee shares these important duties with certain member states of a completely worthless international body.

It is times like this that I think we desperately need a JRR Tolkien or a CSLewis more than ever (which is why their books have had a resurgence). But instead, we are presented with pathetic nothings like Harold Pinter and Mohamed ElBaradei , both of whom are touted as the new symbols of all that is right and good.

[A brief pause while the echoes of hysterical laughter fade]

But, seriously, Iowahawk and Cox and Forkum have captured the true relevance and spirit of the UN; while Scott Ott has the most realistic take on the Nobel situation.

UPDATE: More evidence (if you needed it) on how despicable the UN has become. (Hat tip: The Corner)

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Deja Vu-- All Over Again

Apparently, Democrats fear a backlash at polls for their Iraq remarks . Yes, I imagine they do. Since they aren't burdened by genuine principles, their path is clear. They need to wait and see which way the polls are going to go to decide what stand to take, making sure that they are poised to switch direction at a moment's notice if the situation changes.

Meanwhile, John Kerry consults his plastic surgeon:

As other Vietnam era heroes of the Left spring into action:

Watcher's Council Has An Opening!

Congratulations to ShrinkWrapped, who has joined the Watcher's Council! He replaces e-Claire one of the original Council members. Yet another seat has opened up because Wallo World is retiring from the Council.

For those interested in applying for the open position, go here for more information.

Also, the Watcher always gives bloggers an opportunity each week to nominate their own posts directly to the Council. If you are interested, check out the information here.

I can attest to the fact that being on the Council gives you a great opportunity to read some excellent blogs, and to give more exposure to your own writings. And it's a lot of fun to participate in the judging every week.

Let's hear it for the Watcher of Weasels!

I have been out and about giving several lectures today, so I will do some serious blogging later this evening. Meanwhile, you might go over to the Watcher's site and see what posts are nominated this week!

QURANIC PSYCHIATRY

The Baron at Gates of Vienna has an absolutely fascinating discussion of Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, best known as the man Daniel Pearl was attempting to interview when he was kidnapped and then murdered. But the Sheikh is also the Islamic authority figure for a large Islamic community right here in the U.S.

This is a must read investigative article about the Sheikh and his influence. Of course what interested me the most in what the Baron reports is the Sheikh's foray into what he calls "Quranic Psychiatry":
Book 1, Ultimate Fraud of Freudists contains results of a research and demonstration project done at the Psychiatric Research Institute, Saudi Arabia – and U.S.A Research Centers since 1977. In front of researchers from eight countries, El Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Jilani, Vice Chancellor of International Quranic Open University, demonstrated the affects of chapters and lines from Holy Quran in healing some “incurable” mental and physical diseases. Since a large number of patients have been healed by the qualified practitioner of Quranic Psychiatry (QOU), this book gives theoretical and practical explanations of causes and remedies of many “incurable” diseases.
El Sheikh Jilani was declared Imam of Quranic Sciences in a meeting of physicians and researchers in Taif. Afterwards, Dr. Rushdee Mahmood was inspired to write a long poem in Arabic extolling the extraordinary title and honor bestowed upon his eminence El Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Jilani, Hashmi, Wal Husseini.

Book 2 Psychiatry The Ultimate Betrayal by Bruce Wiseman carries the following declaration: “This publication has been made possible in (an effort aimed at) freeing mankind from the damaging practices of psychiatry and restoring human rights and dignity to psychiatry’s victims.” This is an abridged version being printed with the permission of the author and the Citizen Commission on Human Rights. Book 1 and book 2 compliment each other. Quranic Psychiatry scientifically proves that healing for some incurable mental (and other) diseases lie outside the ken of so-called psychiatry. Bruce Wiseman also proved it his way with statements acknowledging that many diseases are not due to physical cause-thus supporting the fact that man has non-physical aspect (the soul) that often requires specialized treatment.

The reader will find that these two books are meant to warn and save mankind from the worlds most cruel profession, and the worst kind of murdering mechanism which leaves patients neither alive nor dead. (Emphasis mine)

Wow! The world's cruelest profession?

I guess we are even then, since I consider Islam the modern world's cruelest--and most barbaric--religion. But I digress.

Here is an excerpt from the Sheikh's book on psychiatry:
In a Qur'anic Psychiatry clinic, a therapist carries out certain tests to determine the main cause of mental disorders. He or she is trained to use a thread of a particular length. This is given to the patient who holds it for some time. It is then measured very carefully. The Qur'anic therapist reads certain prayers, blows on the thread, and measures the thread again. The thread will either increase, decrease, or stay the same in length. If no change is registered, or course this means the disorder has a physical cause. If it has increased by a good length, this is due to the influence of a non-human agent. If it has decreased in length, this is due to sorcery. If it has increased length but not very much, this the effect of the evil eye. For each change, a special prescription is applied. One may also use the footprint test in the same manner as above.

In the history of pseudo-psychiatry, such psychiatrists have never been able to heal one suffering from schizophrenia, epileptic fits, seizures, psychosis, or neurosis. They are more criminal than murderers who at least kill once and for all.

People in the West know about all of these things, but have no power against them. Only a qualified Qur'anic psychiatrist can treat and save mankind. Many stories have been woven around such people as Uri Geller, a classic example of one suffering from jinn possession. His case is quite common in the East. However, in the name of "research," his promoter, Professor John Taylor, uses this fraud to obtain grants and other moneys for further study. I met the professor myself, in London University, and told him the reality of the case, but he was not interested for the above reason.


The reader can appreciate, I'm sure, the amount of scientific rigor that the Sheikh imparts to his theory. What struck me was how similar his writing was to what I have read in medieval textbooks of medicine that offer primitive explanations about the mental disorders that were observed at the time. The sheikh's explanation of jinns and satanic forces as the etiology of mental illness is surprisingly similar to the thinking in the early Middle Ages. Since the 7th century and the rise of Mohammed, in fact, little original work in medicine--or psychiatry-- was produced in the Arab world because the Koran was seen as the authority for all knowledge. No schools for higher learning existed unless they taught the Koran. This is still the case over thirteen hundred years later.

Here is an article discussing Roman Catholic doctrine toward mental illness in the Middle Ages:
Although mental illnesses, like physical ailments, were often construed as products of demonic influence during the Middle Ages, they were also given partial material explanation. As psychiatrist Jerome Kroll has suggested, "Mental . . . illnesses were attributed as much to overwork, overeating, and overindulgence in sexual activity as to climactic conditions, magic spells, and demonic possession" (1973, p. 281). However, such illnesses were still viewed as products of sin; counsel provided by priests, repentance, and even exorcism were considered the most efficacious remedies. Penitential literature, voluminously produced during this period, played a large role in mental healing. These works discussed a wide variety of indiscretions and prescribed specific acts of penance.
Sacramental practices also facilitated a sense of mental wellness. Extreme unction (called "anointing of the sick" in antiquity and renamed this after the Second Vatican Council), was often administered to those deemed at the end of their lives and was meant to allay anxieties and to help to prepare for death. Although on rare occasions this sacrament was said to restore physical health, according to the Council of Trent its primary impetus was to strengthen "the soul of the sick person by exciting in him great confidence in divine mercy." It aided the person to more easily bear "the miseries and pains of his illnesses" and to resist "the temptations of the devil" (O'Connell, 1986, pp. 114-115). Thus, as with physical wellness, medieval mental health was subsumed under a more vital notion of spiritual well-being.

Catholics nowadays tend to reject psychiatric disorders as a consequences of sin or a manifestation of evil. Islam and Islamic "scholars" remain mired in the early days of the religion's founding, with little interest in allowing in new ideas or the scientific method to its thought processes. At one time the disciples of Mohammed may have been incrementally "more humane" than their counterparts in early medieval times when it came to treating the mentally ill, but it can hardly be considered in any way "humane" to deprive patients of the benefits of science and to reject the incredible advances in the understanding and treatment of the mentally ill that have transpired in the last hundred years particularly.

Western medicine --particularly psychiatry--are far from perfect; and its theories and treatments have at times been abusive and counterproductive; but at least it has not been totally stagnant for centuries.

So-called "Quranic" Psychiatry is neither humane nor "scientific" as the Sheikh proclaims; and as this earlier post demonstrates. It is simply another abuse of psychiatry perpetrated by religious fanatics and anti-science zealots.

AT HOME IN SADDAM'S CORNER

Ramzi bin al-Clark, I mean Ramsey Clark is surely either the most misguided fool on the face of the earth; or he long ago was seduced by the dark side of the Force, finding the evil within irresistable and compelling. I am inclined to give more credence to the latter theory, particularly since Clark ONLY seems interested in attaching himself to mass murdering despots or thugs. He has much to answer for (and I am not only referring to his pathetic little organization of the same name).

From an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News:
The son of Tom Clark, a man President Truman appointed first to attorney general and then to the Supreme Court, Ramsey Clark rose far and fast. And so for the past few decades he's been able to devote his legal expertise to defending a rogues' gallery of some of the most notorious mass killers in modern times. Clark is currently in Baghdad - naturally - as a court-appointed adviser to Saddam Hussein's defense team.

The judge chose the right man. Clark is "the war criminal's best friend," as a headline in Salon once explained - a legal expert who has advised genocidal monsters in the Balkans and Rwanda, for example. And guess who rose to defend the PLO from a lawsuit brought by the family of the wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer after he was slain and tossed off a cruise ship in 1986? Exactly.

Even the most despised among us deserve competent defense, but Clark's association with political ogres goes well beyond a mere technical role. He is irresistibly drawn to any "anti-imperialist" opposing the West - Slobodan Milosevic, Fidel Castro, the North Vietnamese - no matter how bloody their hands.

He should feel right at home in Saddam's corner.

In short, Clark is an enabler, supporter, and defender of genocidal maniacs. When recently calling for an impeachment of Bush (that's right, kiddos; this "man of peace" defends Saddam but demands Bush be impeached) said:

We have to take the Constitution back, back from crimes against peace, from war crimes, and crimes against humanity. You know, the Nuremberg tribunal called the war of aggression the supreme international crime, and it is.

Only a man in terminal denial and without a clue to his own culpability as an accomplice in the murders of several hundred thousand people could possibly utter such drivel.

Or someone who delights in deliberate, and vicious evil.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

THE BUSH ECONOMIC BOOM AND THE THEORY OF LEARNED ECONOMIC HOPELESSNESS

The Bush economic boom is better than any in the last 10, 20...even 30 years!

Even Paul Krugman is perplexed (note: that is not hard for him to achieve).

The Democrats and the Left depended on high oil prices and devastating natural disasters to prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that Bush's economic policies were creating poverty and economic decline. Just imagine if we had not had high oil prices; or a series of natural disasters that wreaked havoc in part of the country.

Meanwhile, attempts to decrease the annual rate of growth in Federal entitlements from a 6.3% increase to a 6.2% increase (a whopping cut of 0.1%) caused this incredible hysteria.

And just to put the above pitiful attempt to decrease the federal deficit in context, imagine what would happen if some quasi-"feel-good" program that in reality did nothing for the poor were put on the chopping block. The mild accusations of simply " hating" the poor would undoubtedly morph into accusations of "genocide" that would undoubtedly make the headlines in the various media outlets (something like: BUSH UNLEASHES 'GENOCIDE' ON THE POOR!).

So, what is behind the fact that people don't feel that the economy is doing well? I propose a variant of Seligman's theory of "Learned Helplessness". But instead of being helpless in the face of inflicted pain; Americans are being inflicted with command hallucinations that unceasingly tell them that the economic situation is dire.

Seligman's theory states very simply that when a person is placed in a situation where there is no way to avoid inflicted pain, it leads to a profound fatalism and resignation to one's situation; and thus presumably to depression and hopelessness. Even when there may be a possiblity of improving the situation; the belief remains intact that there is nothing one can do to stop the pain.

The Santy variant of the theory is purely hypothetical, but is based on empirical observation, and goes like this: When a person is bombarded with unrelenting news reports and news analyses that insist that conditions are bad bad bad; and that people (somewhere) are suffering --even when such assertions are completely untrue-- and that as long as certain people are running the country and remain in power, it is hopeless to imagine that things could change and get better.

In other words, "Santy's Theory of Learned Economic Hopelessness"** works like a mindless political lesson drilled into the mind over and over again--e.g., Republicans hate the poor; Bush hates Blacks; Capitalism oppresses everyone etc. etc.--until facts, reality and truth are completely irrelevant.

Individuals may even momentarily break out of the induced hallucination long enough to note that they themselves are actually doing pretty well financially; but then they are told that they represent an aberration and that everyone else is suffering horribly. So, even if someone were to question the message's veracity; it is used as an opportunity to inflict guilt; and that effectively reinforces the learned economic hopelessness.

If we believe those who propagate the economic hopelessness and thrive off the perception of doom and gloom, then the only cure is to put them back in power.

Except for the fact that it would be like saying the only cure for your sickness is to stop the tough but effective treatment, and to allow the illess to proceed on its natural course, unimpeded.

But at least you could pretend that everything would then be wonderful; and that poverty and economic hardship would soon be erased from the face of the earth; that hurricanes hardly ever happen; and that unnatural disasters like 9/11 are simply an illusion done with smoke and mirrors.

And then those darn voices of doom in your head would finally shut up.

**NOTE: this theory only applies when Republicans are in political power at either the state or federal level. When Democrats are in power we are in an indisputable economic boom.

Delusional Paranoia - A Textbook Example

Hugo Chavez. (more here and here and here)



Of course, it's probably not paranoia if they really are out to get him...

I'm hoping they really are out to get him-- for the sake of his mental health, of course.







From Cox and Forkum.

ARGGGGGH

Blogger was down for several hours last evening. I seem to have lost several posts I was working on into the ether and don't have the energy to redo them this morning.

Check out neo-neocon's theory of conspiracy theories

Power Line has a discussion of the destructive CIA leaks, which seem to have the purpose of simultaneously trying to embarass the Bush Administration as well as to harm its own credibility and ability to function. Sounds like someone there is on a suicide bombing mission.

If you want some comic relief, I suggest you head over to Protein Wisdom, which has the Progressive Left's list of "Do's and Don'ts".

I have to work this morning (real, paying work). More later.

Monday, December 05, 2005

WISHFUL THINKING

The idea that Howard Dean knows anything at all about whether the war in Iraq is winnable or not is an idea which is just plain wrong.

The vile and baseless accusation that our soldiers are "terrorists" sounds remarkably similar to what the same person's testimony in 1971, and is presumably his nuanced way of "supporting the troops".

Both of these individuals are engaging in fanciful bouts of "wishful thinking."

"Wishful thinking" may be defined as the illusion that what you wish to be true, actually is true.

In an earlier post I said:
Their denial is complete on this issue. It is simply not possible for them to admit that Bush was correct and they were wrong. This is unacceptable knowledge. Bush must be wrong, and America must fail for them to maintain not only their self-esteem, but also their worldview

When psychological denial is in play, wishful thinking flourishes.

IN DEFENSE OF DEFENSES

NOTE: Go here for my primer on Psychological Defenses. Some of the examples have lost their link, but I will be updating it in the next week or two)

Because I use psychiatric and psychological concepts to describe behavior in this blog, many people accuse me of labeling anyone who disagrees with me politically as having a mental illness.
This is not true; and it suggests that most of these critics know little about psychiatry, psychiatric diagnoses, or psychological defenses.

While I do believe that some of the people I describe might indeed have a mental illness; and that some are, in fact, perfectly healthy but simply malevolent or evil; it is simply not the case that by exposing certain psychological defense mechanisms that explain their behavior, I am giving the political opposition a medical/psychiatric diagnosis. Nevertheless, if a particular diagnosis fits, I am perfectly content to let them wear it.

In discussing psychological defense mechanism, what I am trying to do is understand how and why people behave in the way that they do. Describing psychological defenses is not the same thing as "making a diagnosis" for one very simple reason. All humans utilize psychological defenses, all the time. Both Democrat and Republican; Left and Right. Good and Bad.

Psychological defenses are involuntary, regulatory coping processes.

By themselves, defenses are not evidence of "illness". When used, they may appear to be "sick," evil, or even irrational, but they reflect a creative adaptation to the world. George Vaillant, a brilliant researcher in this area, and a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard, uses the analogy that defenses mechanisms are deployed in a fashion similar to physical symptoms such as a fever, cough or elevated white blood cell count. All of the latter physical symptoms occur when an individual is coming down with an illness.

Vaillant points out that the body reacts to the environment with these physiological responses in order to prevent or ameliorate the attacking illness. Without these normal physiological responses, we would be at the mercy of many illness and die. In similar fashion, the psychological defenses are employed by the ego to respond to a threatening reality. With varying levels of success, our defense mechanisms ameliorate, distort and/or transform reality in order to protect our psychological self. The healthier and more mature defenses are a remarkably creative synthesis of our conflicts, needs and external reality that enable us to both give and receive pleasure in life.

Some defenses may be considered "immature" or even completely out of touch with reality; while others are "mature". This is not necessarily a value judgement, since it only reflects the fact that throughout development from childhood to adulthood; certain psychological strategies are generally discarded in favor of healthier and more effective strategies. The difference between them is that the psychotic and immature defenses may cause considerable human misery and are, in the long run, not particularly adaptive or healthy. In some cases, they can distort or warp reality to such an extent, that the user's very life is at stake.

Thus, when I see the predominance of "immature" strategies (e.g. projection, fantasy, acting out)--and/or some of the more primitive and potentially psychotic strategies (denial, distortion, paranoia)--being used by supposedly grownup adults, I begin to look around for explanations for their conduct. When I see such strategies being used by large groups or even nations, I cringe; because significant human misery is not far behind.

The careful observation and analysis of behavior is what I do for a living. I am very good at it; and I enjoy my profession. By helping people become aware of what they are doing that wreaks so much havoc in their life, I help them to change their behavior and therefore their lives. By pointing out and helping them to understand some of the unconscious motivations and conflicts they have, I help them to understand the psychological defenses they have employed which may be getting in the way of their pursuit of happiness. By making the unconscious conscious, we begin to understand why they are behaving irrationally and why the have problems in their life. The goal is to get them to abandon those defenses that are distorting reality and holding them back; and to develop a new synthesis so that even their conflicts are put to a positive and productive use in their life.

When there is a physiological component, I also from time to time, prescribe medication so that their nervous system can optimally cope with the real world. This levels the playing field, so to speak; but even when medication is prescribed, only by looking at all the factors that come into play in an individual life--Biological, psychological, and social--am I able to help individuals change the course of their life. It is rarely only a "chemical imbalance" (although sometimes it is). The example I use with my medical students is the following:

A woman who comes to see me is profoundly depressed and suicidal because her husband beats her and her marriage is hell. She meets all the diagnostic criteria for a major depressive disorder, and it is clear that the prescription of an antidepressant might be very helpful. In fact, that is what the woman wants.

However, even if I prescribe the medication, I must gently point out to her that no amount of medication for her is going to change her husband's behavior. Only by changing her own behavior can she change things in her marriage-- e.g., she can leave him; she can demand that he get help; she can suggest conjoint counseling--whatever. Or, she can accept that he will continue to behave a certain way (beating her) and accept that. But the medicine will not magically make any of these things happen. All it will do is give her the physiological strength to cope better. She can accept this reality. Or, she might use denial and continue to believe that medication for her will change her husband's behavior. She might use fantasy to pretend that when her "illness" is cured, her husband will realize what a wonderful person she is and stop beating her up; she might use hypochondriasis, developing migraine headaches or other more serious symptoms that keep her away from her husband; she could be passive-aggressive, buying her spouse his favorite alcoholic drink that is the frequent disinhibitor that leads to him hitting her; she might use displacement and blame her husband's employer --who doesn't appreciate him--for her husband's aggressive behavior toward herself.

If she listens to what I am telling her, she might use anticipation and begin to plan to leave the situation at home an go someplace else. She might then find she has a knack for helping women who have abusive husbands and train to be a counselor (altruism); or find that she has acting ability and play the lead in a local production of "Cat on A Hot Tin Roof" (sublimation).

In fact she could use ANY of the many psychological defenses to help her cope with her problem.

Psychological defense mechanisms give people the psycholgoical strength to cope with the vissictitudes of an ever-changing and often unpredictable reality. Some defenses are more useful than others for that purpose and one of the goals of mature adult functioning is to abandon the immature and problematic strategies that can only ultimately make things worse and which provide little pleasure in their life.

Probably the best description of defenses that I have ever read comes from George Vaillant, in his book The Wisdon of the Ego: (pg. 17 - 18)
1. Defenses reflect creative synthesis. The mind creates a perception that was not there before and that did not come just from external reality. In this regard, defensive behavior resembles art.
2. Defenses are relatively unconscious and their deployment is relatively involuntary.
3. Defenses distort inner and/or outer reality.
4. Defenses distort the relationship between affect and idea and between subject and object.
5. Defenses are more often healthy than pathological.
6. Defenses often appear odd or startling to everyone but the user.
7. Over time defenses often mature and allow the mentally "ill" to evolve into the mentally well.

Let me offer a concrete illustration of a defense--a photograph of a rainbow, if you will, obtained through my metaphorical telescope, the Study of Adult Development. I was interviewing an internist who had participated in the study for thirty years. He told me with vividness and enthusiasm, about his hobby: growing tissue cultures in his basement. He then told me with still more enthusiasm that the cells for one of these tissue cultures had been taken from a lesion on his mother's leg. He described his interest in tissue cultures as if it were the most ordinary pursuit in the world. But I have yet to describe his hobby to an audience without an uneasy ripple of laughter sweeping the room. Audiences have found the fact that this doctor was growing his mother's cells in his basement, as a child might raise flowers, extraordinary, even pathological. In short, the doctor saw his own behavior as normal; outsiders saw it as odd and, as we so often view other people's religion, politics, and dreams, possibly improper. Thus their laughter.

But anyone can have an unusual hobby. What mad this internist's avocation particularly noteworthy was that near the end of the interview he revealed to me--in the most matter of fact way--that his mother had died only three weeks earlier. Knowing that he had been very fond of her, I asked him how he had coped with her death. He said that, since he was a physician, he had spent his time comforting his father. On a conscious level, this man had rationalized --and he was good at rationalizing--that he had borne the grief o flosing his mother by caring for another person. Put differently, by his self-report he had used altruism as a coping strategy. Had I been interested only in conscious coping strategies, I too might have classified his means of mastering his mother's death as altruism. Instead, Ilocated his source of solace by makinig a connection of which he himself was probably unaware. I deduced that the knowledge that somehow his mother was still alive and living in his basement might be providing a secret source of comfort. Certainly he had described his scientific hobby to me with an enthusiasm and a warmth usually allotted to people and to art. Certainly, he had described the loss of his mother by death with the blandness usually allotted to leaves dropping off a tree inautumn--or to tissue cultures.

In short, defenses are creative, healthy, comforting, coping, and yet often strike observers as downright peculiar. But that is why defenses--like immune mechanisms--serve adaptation. That is why defenses integrate experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. Defenses creatively rearrange
the sources of conflict so that they become manageable.

We may not be able to help which defenses our egos deploy in every situation. Sometimes, when reality is threatening enough or our conflicts are intense enough, even the most mature individual may find him or herself using the more immature defenses like denial and projection. What matters is that we make a practice of examining our own behavior and appreciating the underlying issues and motivations that drive it. Or to put it another way, we reflect on those subtle factors that may be controlling our behavior outside our completely conscious awareness (and therefore our control) and make them fully conscious. This is called developing insight and self-awareness. It is probably the equivalent of the "holy grail" in psychiatric practice, and we psychiatrists are forever encouraging our patients to go on such quests of self-discovery.

By making the unconscious conscious, we gain control over our lives and are able to make choices and attack problems based on a clear view of reality. Yes, we may make the wrong choice, or screw up in dealing with the problem even so; we may even discover some unpleasant truths about ourself. But when our psychological defenses are distorting or obscuring reality to begin with, we are far more likely to ignore a problem or pretend that it doesn't exist and then suffer even more serious consequences.

Maladaptive psychological defenses that bring ourselves and others a great deal of unhappiness and misery, can evolve into mature and adaptive responses to the world that both enhance and protect our lives. Human beings are remarkable creatures. Sometimes their capacity for self-deception and delusion seems unlimited; and sometimes their incredible creativity and ingenuity in coping with all the trials and travails that life throws at them is worthy of appreciation and even awe.

WYSIWYG

From Wretchard in the comments of this post regarding the Kyoto conference in Montreal:


Many of President Bush's policies are not particularly brilliant. Many of them are obvious responses that any ordinary person could come up with. The real mystery is not 'why is President Bush so clever' but rather why are apparently clever and well educated people, like the 'Win Without War' and the 'Kytoto Protcol' people so dumb? When you observe President Bush you see what you expect: a normal man muddling along. But when you see the other set you are confronted the almost an unaccountable spectacle of dumbing down.

Many have accused me of idealizing President Bush, and while it is true that since 9/11, I admire him quite a bit, I hardly idealize him. On the contrary, what I find compelling about him are his obviously ordinary human qualities. He strikes me as a very REAL person--not a slick "persona" created by an ad agency; or a "celebrity" onto whom we project our own fantasies.

Bush does not pretending to be intellectually superior and can easily make fun of himself. Nor does it seem to matter much to him that everyone doesn't totally adore him. He tackles hard problems head on (which most politicians lack the courage to do) and perseveres in trying to fix them. He indeed "muddles along", misspeaks, and even screws up from time to time; but he presses on and actually gets things done.

That is what matters most to me.

He has achieved far more in the 5 years of his presidency (which still has 3 years to go) than either his father or Bill Clinton did in 12 years.

I'm sure that drives the Bush Haters crazy.

UPDATE: And this story just makes my day -- and proves my point!

Sunday, December 04, 2005

A Profound Misanalysis


Sheesh. This is about as amazing an example of denial on the part of those who refuse to recognize the threat of Islamofascism as I could have imagined.

Zbigniew Brzezinski states, "The "Islamic" jihad is, at best, a fragmented and limited movement that hardly resonates in most of the world."

One wonders what world Brzezinski inhabits these days.

Cori Dauber comments:
This is a misanalysis so profound one hardly knows where to begin. The list of books I could send one to is so long I hardly know where to start.
But if this is what passes for deep thinking from the opposition, I am profoundly depressed right now.

She's not the only one.

TERRORISTS FOR TROOP WITHDRAWAL

Besides being a protestor social club and a dedicated group that supports acting out behavior in support of every totalitarian dictator and nation on earth, International ANSWER would likely be proud to include a new member in its elite corps: "Terrorists For Troop Withdrawal".



Oh, BTW, ANSWER stands for "Act Now to Support Wackiness and Eschew Reason" (at least I'm pretty sure it does....)

SUPERSTARDOM COVERING SUPERPATHOLOGY?

AJ Strata has an interesting interview up with someone who was once chief of security for Michael Jackson's Never Land Ranch. AJ notes after the interview:


Michael was dealing with an interesting pool of children. Those most in need, those coming from the most desperate families, those with many built in handicaps for dealing with a dominant super star with Class A legal council. The environment that led these children to be in such dire straits is the same which would be available to impugn any of their claims of wrong doing. And a majority would more than likely be open to a financial settlement. This is a recipe for trouble. A picture I am not convinced came out clearly in the trial.

I never recall seeing evidence that it was clear to security at all times how often children slept with Michael over the years. Was it once a month (12 a year), once a week (52 a year) or twice a week (104 a year). This is important information to know, in my opinion. I am not sure why this was not addressed?

Considering the attention that Jackson's recent trial generated, it is clear that he still represents in the mind of the public a figure of great interest. We watch in morbid fascination as "superstars" like Jackson live their lives; engage in foibles and debacles; and make mistakes that come with living large. In general, celebrity status, rather than diminishing the flaws in the people who attain it; seems to magnify them and create innovative options for their expression.

This is partly due to the risk of "acquired narcissism" that is inherent in celebrity. But save your pity for the poor individual who brings his or her own serious psychological defects to the realm of superstardom.

Jackson's bizarre transformation from wholesomecute kid star to exceedingly weird adult was on the world stage, exposed for all to see.

His eccentric behavior related to children--whether completely innocent and arising from a sad, but hardly puzzling desire to remain a perpetual child as he ages badly; or whether originating from a sick sexual pathology combined with predatory machinations--is clearly socially and psychologically suspect.

Take into account his public hypochondriasis and excessively histrionic behavior (even beyond what one might ordinarily find in a subculture that actively encourages that sort of thing), and even a random observer (let alone a psychiatrist looking on)--begins to wonder if there is not some serious psychopathology lurking behind all the trappings of fame and fortune.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that wealth and privilege have covered up serious character pathology. But even in a culture that seemingly goes to extraordinary--one might say ridiculous--lengths to shield children from any hint of inappropriate sexuality-- but at the same time seems also to encourage it; Jackson's superstardom and accompanying wealth will not protect him forever--particularly if the worse that is suspected happens to be true.

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Image hosted by Photobucket.com 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 (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm ET on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I will use as many as possible!
SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!
***NEW*** Feel free to add your own insanities in Trackbacks to this post!

1. Don't these guys have anything better to do?

2. A handy-dandy reference for the clueless. PLUS, Sun Tzu for beginners!

3. No good deed goes unpunished.

4. In case you were wondering what to get Maureen Dowd for Christmas. And just to show that I'm fair and balanced, go here to discover the ultimate present for a 9 year old boy!

5. Criswell Ethan predicts

6. Here's something you don't see everyday--a nurse with a gun!

7. OK, I admit it--I really despise this hypocrite. It is gratifying to know that even the Left doesn't like him anymore.... Now, if he will just STFU and go away, both sides of the political spectrum would be happy.

8. The fastest way to get the next available human...

9. Meet Sylvia, one of the 72 Virgins. Meet Chahrazad Belayni, currently fighting for her life after being set on fire for refusing a marriage proposal.

10. But, if they sit next to women, who knows what might happen? And it would even be worse if they sit next to other men! Men are just mindless animals, I guess.

11. The absolutely positively best reason to vote Republican in 2006. Folks, this is very scary.

12. Making a tidy little profit off of a soldier's death...isn't that nice? And here we have what she and her ilk really think of people in the U.S. Military. They are positively desperate for us to fail in Iraq.

13. And, while we're at it, this is what the Democratic Party thinks of the military (a projection, perhaps?). But according to knowledgeable military sources the Dem's perspective is simply "unmitigated crap." That's a kinder, gentler way of putting it than I would. But to be completely fair, once must admit that they would eventually try to connect the dots.

14. Frogs are the future of antibiotics? Isn't life amazing? (hat tip: Transterrestrial Musings)

15. It all comes down to who you are willing to believe. Professors or Cubans? The terrorists or the US military?

16.. God forbid that anyone should try to discredit communism!

17. No, really! This is a true story! And so is this extremely ironic one.

18. More evidence that Freud was right about phallic symbols....

19. Some speech is freer than others. Just try to put an "X" over Pelosi's face, for example--you'd never hear the end of it.

20. Live by the bomb, die by the bomb.

21. Text message Cliff Notes? Ken Burns' new documentary? What is the literary world coming to?

22. What the DNC talking points would look like if made into a zombie movie . (hat tip: Dr. Helen)

23. "Sounds of the Season"? And the pagans are protesting! But, as this blogger suggests, don't mess with God Almighty!

24. Instapundit makes his "kidnapped worker" policy absolutely clear. Personally, I'd rather work for him.

25. A case of mistaken identity.

26. Hey! Why can't I be nominated for one? Medicine, perhaps. Or peace. Or maybe physics (you don't have to know anything about physics, right?)

27. This meeting must have been sponsored by the UN.


***************************************

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on the button below to obtain the html code:


Heard the Word of Blog?

A Paranoid's Dream

Remember the scene in A Beautiful Mind when the friends of John Nash go into his office at work where he has been presumably working on complicated cryptographic theories? What they discover is a unbelievably jumbled disarray of thousands of articles on every square millimeter of the wall with arrows, theoretical connections and equation. It is a scene that makes the audience realize that Nash has been slowly transitioning from reality, into a world of nightmarish, bizarre, and paranoid connections of psychotic proportions.

That is exactly what the Wilson-Plame fiasco has degenerated into. It is a bottomless well of conjecture verging on projection and fantasy that no longer has any meaning or purpose (if it ever did). The more information we are given; and the more it is analyzed and dissected; the less any of it seems to makes sense.

It has evolved into a conspiracy theorist's fantasy and a paranoid's dream.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

THE RANT

My article "In Denial" is the lead editorial at The Rant this weekend. Go and give this ezine a look if you haven't already!

OVER THE RIVER AND THROUGH THE WOODS

Today we are going to go all those Christmas things that I look forward to each year. We'll be heading out to a nearby farm over the river and through the woods to cut down our Christmas tree ; then set it up and decorate it. We'll also be putting up all the Christmas decorations outside the house.

It is pretty cold (in the low 30's) and there is about 1-2 inches of snow on the ground. But I've got gallons of hot chocolate ready!

The Boo also has a soccer game later in the afternoon (indoor, of course).

Have a great day! Back blogging tonight.

THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !

This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts. I'm proud to have been selected two weeks in a row for the honor of Best Council Post! Congratulations to all the other winners.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Guns, Germs, and Moonbats Right Wing Nut House

Second Place

Discussing Withdrawal From Iraq The Glittering Eye

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

The New York Times on Iraq, 1993-2005 American Future

Second Place

From the Law Offices of Dewey, Cheatam and Howe Varifrank

Don't forget to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.

Friday, December 02, 2005

GOOD NEWS MAKES THEM DESPAIR

Brian Wesbury in the WSJ today comments:

During a quarter century of analyzing and forecasting the economy, I have never seen anything like this. No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy.

It is amazing. Everything is negative. When bond yields rise, it is considered bad for the housing market and the consumer. But if bond yields fall and the yield curve narrows toward inversion, that is bad too, because an inverted yield curve could signal a recession.

If housing data weaken, as they did on Monday when existing home sales fell, well that is a sign of a bursting housing bubble. If housing data strengthen, as they did on Tuesday when new home sales rose, that is negative because the Fed may raise rates further. If foreigners buy our bonds, we are not saving for ourselves. If foreigners do not buy our bonds, interest rates could rise. If wages go up, inflation is coming. If wages go down, the economy is in trouble.

This onslaught of negative thinking is clearly having an impact. During the 2004 presidential campaign, when attacks on the economy were in full force, 36% of Americans thought we were in recession. One year later, even though unemployment has fallen from 5.5% to 5%, and real GDP has expanded by 3.7%, the number who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%.

This is a real conundrum. It is true, bad things have happened. Katrina wiped out a major city and many people are still displaced. GM has announced massive layoffs. Underfunded pension plans are being handed off to the government. Oil, gasoline and natural gas prices have soared. Despite it all, the U.S. economy continues to flourish.

Read it all.

Meanwhile, Bizzyblog dissects this economic conundrum, and demonstrates why public opinion polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because a lot of people believe something is true, doesn't mean it is.

Why all this pessimism? Well, while pessimists often consider the glass half empty quite naturally; much of the economic and political pessimism in this country has to do with denial; and much of it has to do with the fact that any good news means that Bush's policies are working well--which, by definition, makes the Left and the MSM despair.

For people with insight, depression or despair can be a motivating force for them to change their life; or their way of thinking; or even their basic premises about the world. But from what we have seen of the Left and the MSM in the last five years, Bush successes and their own sour reaction to it only stimulate them to pump out even more from their propaganda mills. They are getting increasingly desperate as they opine increasingly delusional rants (hat tip: SC & A).

Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses the "battle of the narrative" that is going on right now concerning Iraq--but he might just as well be talking about the narrative of the economic reality which the Left is determined to distort also.

Blackfive says that the results of fighting on the ground are foregone: what remains is the 'battle of the narrative'. But how do you win a 'battle of the narrative' except with words? Ironically the sheer success of the US Armed Forces in keeping the civilian population from a direct experience of war ensures they will only learn about it through vicarious means: network news, the major newspapers and magazines. Movies. And in that department the OPFOR has Blue radically outnumbered. Any rational observer calculating the correlation of words would have to say that in that battle, Blackfive's narrative hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell. The side with the most power over words has determined that Iraq is a defeat. And yet ...
The problem with using words to trump reality is that it wagers everything on a monumental bluff.


The economic situation by all indicators is excellent. The Iraq War and reconstruction in Iraq is going well (I can hear the outrage that will be precipitated by my saying that--nevertheless it is true); and unless the despair being artificially manufactured and promoted causes us to commit political suicide-- our strategic initiatives in both Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful.

I used to think that the Left was stuck in the 90's, but now I realize they are actually stuck in 1984 or a similar Orwellian reality.

CHRISTMAS WARS (A Ceremony of Carols)

REAL CHRISTMAS
I'm dreaming of a real Christmas
Just like the ones I used to know
Where we say the greeting,
at every meeting
And thumb our noses at Newdow.

I'm dreaming of a real Christmas
Not just a PC holiday
May your days be red and not blue
And may someone stop the ACLU
Play Music


CHRISTMAS WARS
Dashing through the courts
On a PC holiday
O'er the legal torts
Listening to lawyers bray
Lawsuits all around
Making spirits sink
What fun it is to sue and fuss and
Drive us all to drink

Oh, Christmas wars, Christmas wars
PC all the way
Oh, what fun it is to trash
A Christian holiday
Christmas wars, Christmas wars
PC all the way
Oh, what fun it is to trash
A Christian holiday

A day or two ago
I thought I'd go and shop
But when I reached the stores
My jaw it nearly dropped
Because of lawsuit fears
And not wanting to offend
Christ was gone from Christmas
When will this madness end?

Oh, Christmas wars, Christmas wars
PC all the way
Oh, what fun it is to trash
A Christian holiday
Christmas wars, Christmas wars
PC all the way
Oh, what fun it is to trash
A Christian holiday
Play Music

LET US SUE!
Oh the weather outside is frightful,
And making mischief is delightful,
And since we've nothing to do,
Let us sue! Let us sue! Let us sue!

This Christmas thing's not diverse enough,
And besides we are perverse enough
To impose our own point of view,
Let us sue! Let us sue! Let us sue!

When we finally get our way,
How we'll love all that secular bliss !
And you know at the end of the day,
That Christmas won't even be missed!

As our civilization's dying,
And religious folk are cying,
It's "Happy Holidays" to you,
Or we'll sue! Yes we'll sue! We will sue!


[NOTE: The Ceremony of Carols was inspired by this post here.
This was a production of stop/ The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard].

THE CHAMPIONS OF THE OPPRESSED STRIKE AGAIN

A really excellent post by Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom about identity politics, which starts out:

An obvious problem with the grievance aspect of identity politics is that the grievance needs to be perpetually maintained in order to justify the identity aspect of the politics. And in an era of academic specialization wherein just about every individual identity group has its own set of researchers and theoretical champions—as well as a widely accepted generic narrative of grievance—the observation that continued relevance (which translates into political power) is contingent upon the nursing and care of the grievance is something that too often goes unexamined by a society that, at base, really does wish to understand and fix the problems and frustrations expressed by individual identity groups.


He then goes on to expose the power plays that have ensued as these grievance-based promoters against anyone who offers a different perspective. Rather than being able to argue their perspective, they simple define away the problem. If you don't agree with them, you are "anti-feminist" or "anti-black".

I have touched on this same issue in several of my own posts (here and here, for example), but Jeff really makes it clear what is going on here.

Feminism, however, is embroiled in its own internal struggle between second wave (gender feminists) and equity feminists like Young, who are hostile to the academic feminism that has established itself as the “official” feminist narrative after years of insinuating itself into academic, social, and public policy discourse. And so what we are really seeing here is an attempt by gender feminists to control the feminist label and excommunicate those who refuse to adhere to a particular narrative and a particular political strategy for the women’s movement.


This is probably the best description I have seen. Early in my blogging career, I made a comment on a site (I won't link to it) that had a post up making fun of Laura Bush because she was in Afghanistan to support the women there. I said that I thought that it was strange for women who called themselves "feminists" to be deriding Laura Bush with such obvious enthusiasm, and claiming that her husband was an oppressor of women; particularly when his actions had just freed millions of women in Afghanistan.

As a result of this fairly innocuous (but admitedly confrontational) comment, my blog was besieged with angry lefties, including the author of the mentioned post, calling me "hateful" and "anti-woman" and other names which I won't bother to print here. Of course, on the thread where I commented, they never once addressed the points I made, but began immediately to make comments to the effect of "how dare she (me) think of herself as a feminist!" when I clearly supported Bush; and "how naive" I was in imagining that those poor deluded Afghani women were really free. There interpretation of events in Afghanistan was that the only thing that had happened of significance was that the U.S. had simply exposed Afghani women to an even more toxic form of American-style discrimination; and that they would be sorry soon enough that they had traded the Taliban for the blatant sexism of Bush and the evil Republicans.

Of course, this was completely insane BS--not to mention rather delusional-- on their part.

These women who refer to themselves as "feminists" today are actually in a desperate battle to control the feminist "label" and to remain relevant to the discussion of women's rights--even though they clearly abandoned that objective long ago. They spend most of their time just as Goldstein demonstrates, maintaining their own narrow and politically motivated definition of "feminism" and seeking to "excommunicate" anyone who questions their "woman as eternal victim" premise.

Their objective now is maintaining women's victimhood, so they can eternally be the champions of the oppressed.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

THE BARON IS ON THE CASE

The Baron at the Gates of Vienna continues his excellent investigative report on Jamaat ul-Fuqra, or as he calls it, Jamat ul-Everywhere.

Three isolated, reclusive rural African-American Islamic establishments in the hinterlands of Virginia. Two of them associated with Muslims of the Americas, and one with the Nation of Islam. Both connected to Islamic proselytizing in the prisons. Both groups involved, directly or indirectly, with the fraudulent acquisition of public funds. Both involved with the education and training of young people according to the tenets of the Koran.


The Baron's series on this shadowy Islamic group in rural Virginia is a must-read.

POLITICAL FAITH HEALING

A soldier, currently serving in Baghdad, thinks that Americans should listen to President Bush and says:

However, when you discover you have cancer the treatment is always the same - attack it at the source. You don’t wait for it to spread. And when is the last time you heard a doctor putting a limited timetable on cancer therapy? I can picture it in my mind. “Mr. Smith, we have seen some progress with your tumor. It’s shrinking. But we need to move on now. The timetable for treating you has passed. Good luck.”


That approach has the same effect in Medicine that it has in Politics. It's no good appeasing a tumor; and if you enable it by encouraging its growth....well, you can imagine the consequences.

That is why I wouldn't recommend Drs. Kerry, Reid, Pelosi -- or anyone trained at the Democratic Party School of International Medicine. Their alternative medical strategy when treating a potentially lethal disease--instead of aggressive or radical therapy--is wishing; hoping for the best; and/or pretending that a miracle will happen and that everything will magically turn out all right.

It represents a form of political faith healing.

UPDATE: The Anchoress links to a remarkably similar analogy!