Sunday, January 13, 2008

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Image hosted by Photobucket.com Time for the weekly insanity update, 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!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.

REMEMBER, THERE ARE SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Oh, and polls. U.S. history in brief for the politically correct.

2. A random sampling of freedom of speech in Canada. Yikes. Freedom of speech is "an American concept"?? Good grief.

3. Meanwhile, a random sampling of idiocy of another variety in academia. Predicting 10 of the last zero recessions... You've got to wonder why anyone listens to him anymore?

4. Uh-oh. Obama is really sunk now! And, I think he hurt John Edward's feelings. This can't help, either. Time for the spoofs!

5. As for his opponent-- buy one, get one free? Isn't voting against--or for--someone on the basis of race or sex...racist and sexist respectively? The crying game.... Or was it performance-enhancing drugs? You decide.

6. But hey! Maybe they're all secret agents working for C*H*A*N*G*E, that diabolical international organization that opposed the Turd Reich.

7. Did I say diabolical? I meant Dieboldical. It's always safe to blame those evil corporations! Or take it out on the Poles. Or blame global warming?

8. The pre-9/11 George Bush? Perhaps. What he should tell Mahmoud, but probably won't. Ignoring elephants? He comes to bury Ron Paul, not to praise him.

9. Artistic appeasement. Very courageous.

10. Just what we need...a joint overt operations unit!

11. Live longer with these New Year's resolutions! Or, just take two pills and call me in the morning. Learning Life's Lessons from...Desperate Housewives??

12. But he meant well. They mean well. It just gets all screwed up in implementation!

13. Hoist (killed, actually) on his own petard. Well-deserved. Another quirk of fate. Not deserved.

14. Power to the people small bloggers! And there are billions of small bloggers....

15. The deceased of Germany have overstayed their welcome!

16. Congratulations! You are the proud relative of a cuddly bag of rice! Are you an average guy?It's probably a mistake to write about your insanity-riddled family....

17, Finally together! What women want to know about men...and what men want to know about women.

18. Being able to propose without derailing your other financial goals - Priceless --no matter what your gender orientation!

19. Worry no more about how much bother it is to carry both your MP3 music player and your Taser gun!

20. Anything that smiles probably doesn't belong on the menu. A good rule. This is one spa I won't be going to.

***************************************
Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival and at the BlogCarnival.

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 "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:


Heard the Word of Blog?

Saturday, January 12, 2008

HELL FREEZES OVER

Really!
BAGHDAD - After weathering nearly five years of war, Baghdad residents thought they'd pretty much seen it all. But Friday morning, as muezzins were calling the faithful to prayer, the people here awoke to something certifiably new.

For the first time in memory, snow fell across Baghdad.

Although the white flakes quickly dissolved into gray puddles, they brought an emotion rarely expressed in this desert capital snarled by army checkpoints, divided by concrete walls and ravaged by sectarian killings — delight.


You would think this would be a good time for Democrats to admit the Surge has worked; that we have turned a corner in Iraq; and that we have effectively routed Al Qaeda and to concentrate on winning in this war.... but you would be wrong:
Congress Daily reports on a recent conference call with Democratic Senator Ben Nelson and former Kerry campaign foreign policy adviser Rand Beers. The call focused on Nelson's effort to push for a change in mission for our troops in Iraq, and the failure of the surge to promote political reconciliation.

Yet while Nelson reportedly acknowledges that the surge has achieved 'key military objectives,' he is apparently still able to utter this phrase:

Noting that President Bush announced the surge initiative last January, Nelson said: "Here we are one year later and it's like Groundhog Day. Everything seems to be the same."


The comment demonstrates a stunning indifference to the extraordinary turnaround that has taken place in Iraq in the last year.


Facts, schmacts. What do they care if they aren't in the White House?

WE'LL NEVER ADMIT IT'S GETTING BETTER
The Official Theme Song of the Democratic Party (with apologies to the Beatles)

It's fun to get mad at the Prez
And trash everything that he says
He's holding us down, making us frown
We'd rather love Hugo Chavez!

We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.

We used to be happy, you see
But now we're the knights who say NIE
Iraq got to vote
But we really hope
That no one pretends they are free.

We'll never admit it's getting better
We stand for nothing and have no plan
We simply hate to admit it's getting better
And we hate that we lost and that Bush is the boss
And we'll thwart him as much as we can.

We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.

UPDATE: Jules Crittenden has more.

Friday, January 11, 2008

COURAGEOUS FEMINISTS AND OTHER FAIRY TALES

Via Israpundit, this story is rather interesting (hat tip: Alex Bensky):
Ms. Magazine has long been in the forefront of the fight for equal rights and equal opportunities for women. Apparently that is not the case if the women happen to be Israeli.

The magazine has turned down an AJCongress advertisement that did nothing more controversial than call attention to the fact that women currently occupy three of the most significant positions of power in Israeli public life. The proposed ad (The Ad Ms. Didn't Want You To See: http://www.ajcongress.org/site/DocServer/Ms.pdf?docID=1961 ) included a text that merely said, "This is Israel," under photographs of President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik.

"What other conclusion can we reach," asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, "except that the publishers − and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers − are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?"

When Director of AJCongress' Commission for Women's Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad "will set off a firestorm" and that "there are very strong opinions" on the subject − the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.

A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher's office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine "would love to have an ad from you on women's empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this." Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what "this" is....

"This flagship publication of the American women's empowerment movement publishes ads that are controversial in the general culture but not so among its readership," Ms. Kurlander said. "Obviously, Ms. believes our ad would enflame a significant portion of their readers."


Of course, the "flagship" of women's empowerment has no problem accusing the Bush Administration of being "bent on rewarding big corporations and the rich, turning back the clock on women's rights and civil rights, and promoting a U.S. empire abroad." Such formidable courage is simply breathtaking.

Ms--like almost all the leftist feminists of today--would rather enshrine and perpetuate the eternal victimhood of women (they depend on it actually) than highlight anything so politically incorrect and demeaning as powerful women who don't happen to share their leftist politics. Frankly, Ms and today's feminists are just a joke, continuing to promulgate the same marxist fairy tales.

Don't look now, sisters, but your "flagship" is sinking like a stone.

UPDATE: Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that, if it was the female vote that buoyed Hillary in New Hampshire, they better remember their place in the socialist food chain before they get too uppity:
Other behaviors of the unrepentantly socialist dictators suggest that, while there are many victim groups, some groups are far more important than others. As the example above shows, the culture or religion's status as "victimized" allows (nay, it demands)the suppression of the various uppity victim classes within it (e.g., Women or Gays) who try to rise above their rightful place in the utopia.

From the perspective of the socialist utopian, what matters more than Women's rights or Gay Righs are the rights of a designated culture. The dogma of multiculturalism trumps the dogma of women's superiority. This is probably because for the socialist utopian, might makes right and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few--and the few better remember that fact, or else. In the socialist utopia, there is no room for individuality or personal preference; or tolerance for differences. You always must subsume yourself to the collective; and the bigger the collective, the more power victimization can be exploited.

For example, we know from experience that blacks, women and gays lose their cherished victim status if they dare to become Republicans; and, to a lesser extent, if they choose to be Christian (except for most Episcopalians, who have seen the secular light).

Being black trumps being a woman or gay (i.e., there is more "social justice" mileage to be squeezed out of the oppression of blacks, i.e., racism, than there is from the oppression of women (sexism) or even gays (homophobia). Just ask Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.[Ed. note - or, Barack Obama, for that matter]

The oppression of Jews is completely ignored because of the animus the "enlightened" have toward Israel; and anti-semitism, which in past times would have had a ranking up close to the level of dark-skinned people (probably because those who founded the Jewish state were dedicated socialists--unfortunately, they soon realized that in real life, their ideology didn't work too well); but anti-semitism no longer is a compelling issue for the socialists. In fact, they are among its worse practitioners as socialism has spread throughout the Middle East.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

A NOT SO INEXPLICABLE ANGER

Glenn Reynolds notes that a "prophecy" uttered by Jonah Goldberg is already coming true. From an email he quotes:
Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton -- inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30's, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90's, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her 'victory' speech.


And that's just one primary! All is proceeding as Jonah has foreseen.


Actually, the anger that many on the left are currently directing at the Clintons post-New Hampshire, and that we on the right are observing with mixed astonishemnt and amusement--is in many ways, quite remarkable. Those of us from the conservative side of things have had a long tradition of dislike of the Clintons--husband and wife. Sometimes this dislike has become so intense and overpowering that it has clouded--or at least impeded rational judgments about either.

So it is particularly surprising to see the people who for years adored the happy couple; sanctified and righteously defended Bill, and beatified Hillary while holding her up as a model for all women, suddenly--and with so very little alteration in the essential behavior that either bill or Hill have displayed for the last 15 years--screaming with outrage at their former pets.

No wonder Hillary cried in public. She has been betrayed by the Democrats and the left in the same casual way her fickle husband has been betraying her throughout their marriage.

What's going on here?

In a post called "Denial,Repression, Lying and Forgetfulness" I wrote:

Denial, which is an immature defense is defined as an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes--or even a painful external reality that alters the perception of ourselves. This psychological defense mechanism protects us temporarily from:
-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)
-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)
-Unacceptable feelings (things we don’t want to feel)

One type of denial is Repression , a neurotic defense characterized by a seemingly inexplicable naivete, memory lapse, or lack of awareness. Repression is often dismissed as an artifact of diminished attention by cognitive psychologists, but I find that it almost always reflects a rather creative method to resolve some inner conflict for the person who uses it. With repression, affect is out in the open, but the associated idea is out of the mind and unavailable to consider. Someone who has repressed some knowledge may be genuinely astonished that anyone would consider them to have deliberately ignored the issue.

The "forgetting of repression is different from ordinary forgetting in that there is often some sort of parallel symbolic behavior that goes along with it.

Most often repression is associated with histrionic traits. A typical example might be the doting and dutiful wife who remains blissfully unaware of the husband's constant philandering--although the evidence is obvious to everyone else; and she may not understand why she feels anger at her spouse. She may defend him passionately from his accusers, but the anger will find a way to express itself in various ways within their relationship....

Thus, we might conclude that Hillary's surprise in discovering that Bill was being paid by Dubai and the U.A. E., even as she was denouncing the port deal is an example of:

(a) PSYCHOLOGICAL DENIAL (suggesting she is out of touch with reality)
(b) PSYCHOLOGICAL REPRESSION (suggesting that she has neurotic conflicts)
(c) DELIBERATE LYING (suggesting that she is a liar)
(d) NORMAL FORGETFULNESS (suggesting that she is clueless and inattentive)

...[S]uffice it to say that neurotic defenses may be used by all sorts of intelligent people....


The left and the Democrats are now equally astounded to discover that the Clintons are the Clintons! And that they would use the usual Clinton tactics against them!

Just as Hillary had a neurotic and "forgetful" moment regarding the antics of her husband; what we are witnessing is a supremely neurotic moment on the part of the left, who willy-nilly have jumped the Clinton ship and climbed aboard the Obama "vessel of hope". They are astounded that the antics of the Clintons (which for years they have rationalized and excused) are being used against them. Their idealization the Clintons had worn thin and, just in the nick of time, along comes a younger, prettier face that can help them shore up those tired, old "progressive" ideas, and delude them into believing they actually are supporting something fresh and innovative.

I hate to tell them, but Obama is just another socialist hack. For sure, he's fresh and young and articulate. But his ideas are no fresher than Hillary's and quite a bit more rigid and uncompromising. Hillary and Bill never believed in anything but themselves. Obama comes across as selfless as Mother Theresa, promising to lead us to his utopian wonderland.

What we are witnessing is the neurosis and fickleness of the political left, who just a short time ago adored the Clintons and could bear nothing bad be said about their legacy in the White House.

Like the prototypically unfaithful spouse, they blithely abandon the imperfect, aging and increasingly more obviously flawed partner to take up with a person who can give them the illusion that their old ideas and their stagnant political party seem young again.

And, when confronted with the unpleasant reality of their traitorous and shallow thoughts, they react with surprising anger toward the former object of their love, who now stands squarely in the way of being able to attain the new, and more perfect, ideal object.

I wish them luck with their audaciously new-and-improved delusion hope.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

PRIMITIVE, BUT EFFECTIVE

"WE SHOULD HAVE SUNK EVERY ONE OF THEM"

Ralph Peters is 100% correct:
EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.

As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they'd soon explode.

The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.

The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.

We should've sunk every one of them.


The Mullahs are religiously-sanctioned bullies. The President of Iran is a short, pathetic thug. What is the best way to deal with these grownup bullies and thugs?

They are already engaged in killing Americans and have been for quite some time. And they know that they have several layers of protection that make it safe for them to behave as they like. They have deduced on the basis of past responses to their provocative actions that there will be no consequences for such behavior--wither from those who are the direct recipients of that behavior; or from the international community at large.

In "Showdown at the U.K. Corral" I wrote:
Consider, if the leaders of the free world cannot respond appropriately and decisively to the latest Iranian hostage crisis (and you think they would remember the consequences of the last one--particularly on the so-called "legacy" of Jimmy Carter), then the crisis will only escalate. What Carter did (and didn't do) 25 years ago paved the way for 9/11 and the many crises we are dealing with today; what future horrors will the selfish and malignant pacifism of today's left pave the way for in the next decade?

The Mullahs are watching and have a great big Cheshire cat grin on their face. They almost certainly have concluded from the useless British and international response that they can get away with practically anything now.


The key behavioral factor in extinguishing undesirable behavior is never to reinforce the behavior you are trying to extinguish. This fact is essential to understand, particularly when dealing with bullies who hail from a shame-phobic culture. The desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture, and it has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing when they believe they have the upper hand.

In fact, any and all attempts to placate or reason with them will only result in their behavior escalating. That is because they sense weakness; and your weakness presents them with the opportunity to maximize both their own honor (such as it is) and your shame.

Bullies and thugs will not suddenly develop respect for your profound desire for peace and your non-violent, even appeasing, intentions--no matter how sincerely you express them. On the contrary, they conclude that you are weak and that there will be no consequences if they continue to push you around.

Once again, Iran has confirmed their beliefthat they are dealing with a paper tiger when they take on the West.

Charles Krauthammer noted that multilateralism and turning to the "international community" to handle the bad guys in the world has been singularly ineffective:
The result is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury.

Remember the great return to multilateralism — the new emphasis on diplomacy and "working with the allies" — so widely heralded at the beginning of the second Bush administration? To general acclaim, the cowboys had been banished and the grown-ups brought back to town.

What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated.

The capture and release of the 15 British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the "international community" and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the EU and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to "deplore" this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of "grave concern"). Then turn to the despised Americans. They'll deal some cards and bail you out.

(***see cartoon below for more on the complex UN multitasking activities as they deal with evil in the world)

This pattern of positively reinforcing the negative behavior of our enemies as we simultaneously negatively reinforce every effort to confront and deal with that negative behavior indicates a psychological denial and delusion so profound that it is simply stunning in its pathology.

No matter how you look at it--either from a behavioral or a psychological perspective--it seems clear that things are only going to be going from bad to worse in the immediate future. And make no mistake about it, Iran will do something like this again. And the next time they will be interested in seeing how much further they can go with their antics--Can they kill an American or two without reprisal? How about kidnap some sailors right off the ship? They already know they can send explosives to Iraq and detain Americans without too much outrage or reprisals.

As Peters says at the beginning of his article, our tepid response to the Iranian attempt to humiliate our Navy has ensured that Iranian provocations will escalate.

********

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

ORCHESTRATED CIRCUSES AND CLOWNS

The invaluable Thomas Sowell reminds us on this New Hampshire Primary day of some important realities concerning the candidates:

"With all the media attention to the various political rivalries in both parties, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that all of this is ultimately about choosing a President of the United States.

The question of what kind of President each candidate would make is infinitely more important than all the "horse race" handicapping that dominates the media.

By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.

Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style and color.

The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.

Among the Republicans, there are misgivings about the track record of each of the candidates, especially those who have shown what Thorstein Veblen once called "a versatility of convictions."

There are fewer reasons for misgivings about Fred Thompson's track record in the Senate but more reason to be concerned about what his unfocused and lackluster conduct of his campaign might portend for his performance in the White House.

When it comes to personal temperament, Governor Romney would rate the highest for his even keel, regardless of what events are swirling around him, with Rudolph Giuliani a close second.

Temperament is far more important for a President than for a candidate. A President has to be on an even keel 24/7, for four long years, despite crises that can break out anywhere in the world at any time.

John McCain trails the pack in the temperament department, with his volatile, arrogant, and abrasive know-it-all attitude. His track record in the Senate is full of the betrayals of Republican supporters that have been the party's biggest failing over the years and its Achilles heel politically.


I have more than a little familiarity with choosing the right stuff, and I can tell you that when it comes to temperament, Sowell is right on. Temperament is crucial in selecting a candidate in these troubled times who is able to make sound, rational decisions that will keep the country safe and, at the same time, hold true to our precious values and freedoms.

And, only by accident do we ever get a true picture of the candidate's real temperaments during this primary season. Their personas are all pre-packaged and wrapped to perfection. The rare moments when we see the real person shining through the glitz is often so brief that it can be hard to recognize. And, even those rare moments are frequently scripted to make us think we are seeing the real person beneath, when in fact, we are seeing exactly what they want us to see.

That's why a candidate's history is so important. Because the best predictor of future behavior/performance is past behavior/performance. We simply can't trust what we are being shown now during carefully arranged and cleverly manufactured circus events.

In observing the selection process, I can't help but feel we are going about it the wrong way. The likability factor seems to wash out every other factor. A pretty face or glib words lull people into false hope and mindless support for candidates that promise them the moon.

We seem to be pleading with the candidates, "Make it all go away! Tell us anything to make us believe that everything will be wonderful if we elect you!" And, of course, the candidates oblige willingly.

It won't be wonderful, folks. We are in for a long, hard trek over the next 8+ years. There won't be any magical solutions, and the "change" that everyone is clamoring for is going to be happening anyway-- no matter who is elected. But not, I think, in the way the word is being bandied about so relentlessly.

The issue isn't change, it is what kind of change and in what direction? It is, can we live with the changes that are coming whether we like them or not?

Frankly, we need a real leader, and not a slick, media-savvy, audacious rock star preacherman to take charge and lead us through the minefield of changes and challenges ahead....And I've yet to see one that I can trust to do the right thing even when it is difficult in the current herd of candidates. It's possible that whoever is elected will be tested by events and turn out to be the person we need...but I hate to leave it so much to chance and "glib demagoguery".


There's got to be a better way for democracies to choose candidates than these orchestrated primary circuses with all the glib, reality-defying acts and convoluted clown antics.

Ah well. Sometimes we have to do the best we can with the candidates we have; and not the candidates we wish we had.

THE SANITY SQUAD MAKES NH PREDICTIONS !

Last night on our weekly podcast, The Sanity Squad made some predictions and provided some pscyhological and political analysis of the Democratic and Republican races for the Presidency. Take a listen to Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me as we analyze, interpret, and otherwise pontificate as shrinks tend to do!

Click below to listen:
BlogTalkRadio.com

Monday, January 07, 2008

THE SANITY SQUAD DOES THE PRIMARIES

LIVE FROM SOMEWHRE IN PRIMARY COUNTRY! It's THE SANITY SQUAD! On both sides of the political aisle, strange things are happening...Hillary is down and possibly out of contention; and Huckabee and Obama seem to be soaring. What will happen next? Whose fortunes are rising and why. What's behind the strange political atmosphere that seems to be infecting the country...and does it matter?

Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some psychological and political analysis of Iowa and New Hampshire that's sure to be provocative and, hopefully, extremely annoying.

Click below to listen live at 8 PM tonight:
BlogTalkRadio.com

CALL-IN Number during show is (646) 716-9116

HE'S GOT SUNSHINE ON A CLOUDY DAY

Recently I wrote about my visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton and its origins:

Sure, Hillary is fairly bright. But that is trumped by the fact that she married a philanderer and has stayed with him through public humiliation after public humiliation. That is not "love", nor is it "constancy", nor is it in any way laudable in my estimation. Frankly, it reeks of incredibly poor judgement, particularly since Bill has not apparently reformed since the Lewinsky affair; though admittedly he's less public about it since his wife began her run for the White House.

OK, fine. She has chosen to stick with the jerk. What goes on in their bedroom (or doesn't) is none of my business. It's her problem and her cross to bear....but...but she seems to think--no expect, that I, as a woman, should be excited and revved up that she is running for President.

Sorry, not interested in that line of propaganda. As far as I'm concerned, she's a complete loser as a woman and not at all a role model I'd hold up to my daughter. I don't care how many people she cons with this "I am woman, hear me roar" bullshit.

Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a postmodern gold digger whose preferred "gold" happens to be political power.

I can hear people saying now, "Oh, Doc that's not fair! She's a person in her own right..." Exactly. I don't like that person. I don't like how she's used her relationship to a powerful man to leverage her own power. There are brilliant, capable women out there who could do a superb job as the leader of the free world, and who have never, ever used their marriage, either positively or negatively to get ahead. And Hillary does both--she plays the "Bill card" to push how much experience and qualifications she has to be president; and at the same time routinely plays the "victim card"--poor little woman burdened with an unfaithful man; or poor little woman abused by the oppressive male power structure--whenever it suits her purposes. Yuck and double yuck.

I made the following point about her adoring husband and their dysfunctional marriage in this post:

If elected President, the American people will always be able to count on Hillary to say and do what's right for the country--when and only when it will advance her own sense of entitlement and grandiosity. Once elected, of course, she won't need Bill anymore except perhaps as a figurehead for her authority and a reminder of how she ultimately used and bested him.

I have no doubt that her sad and equally grandiose husband understands this on some psychological level and is therefore working hard behind the scenes to ensure her defeat, or at least undermine it; even as he looks adoringly at her in public. After all, it does not further his essential narcissism to become the First Lady.

That's how dysfunctional marriages--and the people in them--operate.


Well, as Roger Simon notes, it doesn't take Sigmund Freud to figure out that Bill's unconscious will work tirelessly to ensure that Hillary does not get elected. It is, after all, the last thing his incredibly grandiose self wants to happen.

Last night in NH, he grinned into a TV camera and introduced Hillary and his daughter as "My girls..."

Wow. The feminist movement has now been turned on its head. Prediction: disaster for Hillary Clinton.


Finally, Victor Davis Hanson has this to say in "Oh Hillary, Where Art Thou?", which cuts to the heart of the matter:
Poor Hillary is in a Catch-22 dilemma-and there's no Dick Morris to bail her out. Bill's constant presence, campaign gaffes, and serial narcissism contributed to her slide, reminding Americans that his ubiquitous picture on the screen, her incessant references to her work in his administration, and the specter of 28 consecutive years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton rule are about the farthest thing from "change" imaginable.

And then there is the Freudian problem. It is not altogether clear that his own desire for another eight years of the limelight overshadows a deep-seeded resentment and envy of his wife, who might, as the first-female president, and a liberal who avoided tawdry scandal, overshadow the prior Clinton's legacy.


And so, with apologies to The Temptations, the Clinton Campaign should probably adopt a new theme song:

MY GIRL
(as sung by Ex-President William Jefferson Clinton about his wife)

I've got sunshine
On a cloudy day.
When the chips are down,
I've got a lot to say.

Well, I'll stand by my Hill
When it comes to power she's got the will,
And she's My girl. (My girl, my girl)
Talkin' 'bout my girl. (My girl)

We've got plenty of money
But don't envy me.
There's a big, deep hole
Where my center should be.

But, I'll stand by my wife
To the bitter end
As I've done all my life,
Cause she's my girl. (My girl, my girl)
Talkin' 'bout my girl. (My girl)

We can always use money,
Since money buys fame.
And if you lose the race, baby,
I won't be to blame.

Cause, I'll keep fightin', girl,
Beneath the ice there's a real pearl!
Believe me, dear, when I truly say
I feel your pain, honey, and I like it that way.
My girl. (My girl, my girl)
Standin' by my girl. (My girl)

Talkin' bout my girl.
I've got sushine on cloudy day
With my girl.
I've always got a lot to say
'Bout my girl.


VOTE FOR BILL HILL !

Sunday, January 06, 2008

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Image hosted by Photobucket.com Time for the weekly insanity update, 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!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.

REMEMBER, THERE ARE SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. It's all in your head, you know. There's trouble everywhere worldwide, but let's look on the brighter side!

2. Doesn't this person understand what he reveals about himself? Sheesh. The left is so clueless. Headlines tell us so much--and not necessarily about the story. In response to this idiocy, I must agree with the emailer. Hoist by their own petard, so to speak.

3. Who's afraid of the big, bad wolfBill.... Afraid? They're terrified. Check out the memo announcing the momentous occasion!

4. Chavez's only chance is to pay the cocaine-fueled revolutionary army through the nose (I intend the pun).... And, here's his way of dealing with the pesky problem of inflation: Simply deflate it and it will magically go away! What a comical genius that clown is. Can't sleep...clown will eat me!


5. Speaking of the paranoid delusions of the left, the guy described in this post should move to Ann Arbor. He'd fit right in. Or move to Britain where they have true leftoid freedom of speech. More "free speech"-- as defined by the politically correct. Do you have the sense that they are just a little unclear on the concept?

6. Oh nooooooo! The evil Israelis have killed Santa! Guess Mike's letter will be returned--and it was so politically correct, too! But, they have "crossed all the boundaries of a civilized nation" and their existence is a tragedy...or is it farce?

7. Definitely not coming up roses. Not the freshest flower in the bunch, is she? An earmarxist? Good one! Just something your average, run-of-the-mill marxist will do. Oh goody! Another victim group to champion. Are you a gingerist?

8. Give me hijab or give them death!--so sayeth the Patrick Henry of the Islamists. Islam says submit...or die.

9. The war on science: yet another reason to get the government out of schools...it leads to bogus science and data bombs. Uh-oh. The fat police won't like this David!

10. Thank you, Iowans! Maybe too far? Probably not. If Obama is a Rorschach Test, then Huckabee is a ____ (fill in the blank). Saintly Huckabee unveils all the dirt he won't use against his rivals. What a prince!

11. No more polls? Hah! Dream on.

12. Foolish mortals! Look upon her and despair.... Remeber the origin of our image of..errr....witches. Quietly heroic? If she were from the other political party they'd make fun of her intelligence, wouldn't they? You can pray, but don't move your lips.

13. Setting the global agenda? Just another celebrity endorsement? Pimp my Rolls!

14. Send in your proposals for making America a better place through televised humiliation and absurdity!

15. What men want to know about women.... Oh, good. Just in time for Valentine's Day. Boys need an arena....

16. Is it a coincidence that fingers fit in nostrils?

17. Putting your feet up? Priceless.

18. You've worked hard on your blog...you DESERVE comments!


***************************************
Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival and at the BlogCarnival.

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 "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:





Heard the Word of Blog?

Saturday, January 05, 2008

THE PARANOID DELUSIONS OF THE LEFT

They are, of course, everywhere on the DU; but you need go no further than this bizarre article at The Huffington Post:

In 1968, when Kennedy was gaining momentum and piling up primary victories it looked as though he would win the presidential nomination. But before he could be safely ensconced inside "the bubble" of 24-hour federal protection he was assassinated. And his progressive challenge to the war in Vietnam and to poverty at home was stopped in its tracks.

In 2008, Obama is gaining momentum, and hopefully people inside his organization are cognizant of the fact that he constitutes a very real threat to the likes of Blackwater, Dyncorps, Halliburton, and the hundreds of other private companies currently profiteering from the Iraq occupation.


Having conveniently forgotten the motives behind Sirhan Sirhan's assassination of Kennedy in 1968 (Sirhan apparently believed he was betrayed when Kennedy supported Israel in the Six-Day War and was angry in general over the creation of the state of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians---not exactly a person of the political right, would you say?), Palermo seamlessly goes into a rather typical leftist anti-capitalist diatribe stating, "Under an Obama Administration Blackwater would no doubt be cut down to size along with Bush's other crony capitalist entities."

Ummmm. yeah.

The beginning of the 21st century will surely be looked back on as a golden age of paranoia. The headlines of today fairly ooze with the delusions and vast conspiracies dreamed of in the mind of the paranoid left.

If we go back a little we can find reams of material to document this process, but let's look at two others.

The first is an example of a series of bizarre conspiracy theories emanating from anxious leftist as they attempt to keep the holes in their ideology plugged; thus preventing any reality from washing over them or flooding their cognitive processes.

Every time a leak in that ideological dike appears, the paranoid brand chewing gum is brought out to stop it up. The TNG memos were a clever plot by Karl Rove. The Bush Administration was behind 9/11; Katrina was allowed to destroy New Orleans because Bush hates blacks. George Bush is about to impose a theocracy on the unsuspecting U.S. Pat Tillman was murdered because he wanted to meet with anti-war activist Norm Chomsky. The list of the paranoid delusions goes on and on and on.

Taken as a whole, they are evidence of an ongoing and determined refusal to face reality--because it is a reality that threatens the belief systm of a whole section of the American population. Without the delusions and conspiracies concocted by the always creative political left, their whole house of Marxist cards will come crumblin down.

Some have said that Unwillingness To Face Reality And Its Consequences is the most serious mental illness of our time; and that is most certainly true.

If scientists can say that obesity is "socially contagious", consider for a moment how a much more contagious psychological processes like paranoia and projection are. Indeed, this tendency to deny reality is at epidemic levels. In our own country, we must deal with an entire poltical party and half the nation in the grip of the illness.

But there are also other large groups and populations that suffer from mass paranoia and projection. Let us take the second example drawn from news headlines this week:
SUDAN: JEWS BEHIND DARFUR CONFLICT

Sudanese defense minister says '24 Jewish organizations fueling conflict in Darfur'

Sudan's defense minister, Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein, has accused "24 Jewish organizations" of "fueling the conflict in Darfur" last week in an interview with a Saudi newspaper.

Hussein was interviewed during an official state-visit to the Saudi kingdom last week.

A journalist from Saudi Arabia's Okaz newspaper asked Hussein: "Some people are talking about the penetration of Jewish organizations in Darfur and that there is no conflict there?"

"The Darfur issue is being fuelled by 24 Jewish organizations, who are making the largest amount of noise over the issue, and using the Holocaust in their campaigning," the Sudanese defense minister replied.

Hussein added that the Darfur conflict was driven by "friction between farmers and herders and shepherds. Among the biggest problems is that of water, which is used to exploit the differences and fuel the conflict."

"Are these Jewish groups supporting (the rebels) financially?," the interviewer from Okaz asked Hussein.

"Yes, they provide political and material support through their control over the media and across American and British circles," Hussein said, adding that Jewish groups were using "all means to fuel these conflicts."


The "Pat Tillman was deliberately murdered by the Bush Administration" and "The Jews are behind the genocide in Darfur" stories are both perfect examples demonstrating how the bacteria of paranoid stupidity is spread. The infecting agent is usually a true believer who cannot face some unpleasant aspect of reality (i.e. that always "unpleasant truth") that is starting to trickle out into the open. It must dammed up immediately. The paranoid gum is handy and easy to use--just chew it up and plaster it over the hole.

For the political left, the gum is a creative conspiracy theory that links the Bush Administration to anything bad in the world--in this case to discredit a celebrity military hero who died under tragic circumstances, but who died fighting for his country. Such a bizarre distortion of the cirucumstances of his death serves to undermine his bona fides as a real patriot while demonizing the entire Bush Administration and the war on terror. It is simply another manifestation of BDS.

The second story is a manifestation of the deep-rooted dysfunction of the religion of Islam, which has mired a good portion of the world in it medievalism. In order to rationalized its backwardness and the failure it has been societally and culturally, the Jews serve as the handy scapegoat on which they can blame all their own societal failures. To do otherwise would mean they would have to question some very basic assumptions about their fantasized superiority.

In making paranoid pronouncements, the paranoid person always takes himself or herself extremely seriously. Rarely do people like Palermo, or the 9/11 Troofer, the Pat Tillmaniac, or the Islamoparanoid present themselves to a mental health professionals seeking help; or even complaining about their psychological projections, no matter how bizarre or dysfunctional they may be. That is because for them, the paranoia and the accompanying projections explain away and rationalize so much about their failures as individuals and cultures.

The insane asylum we refer to as the Middle East and all its affiliates in Africa and Indonesia where Islamic delusion runs rampant, have a fully formed paranod fantasy that explains their lack of progress and their dysfunction in the real world. Likewise, the lunatic left also subscribes to their own special convoluted explantions of dysfunction and lack of power. In both cases, if the object of their projections did not exist, they would have to invent them because their world view cannot be held together without the gummy glue of the paranoid fantasies that connect all their dots. To them, the fact that Blackwaters and Halliburtons--or any successful capitalist business exists--is enough to explain their own dysfunction and lack of progress.

Funny, isn't it, how this characteristic and prevalent delusion of the political left perfectly parallels the paranoid delusions of the backward Islamic oountries of the Middle East and their attitude toward the "evil Jews."

If only Israel and the Jews could be "wiped off the map"; or, if only those evil capitalist companies could be "torn up into a thousand pieces and scatter[ed] to the wind" then Islam/Progressivism would be more successful.

Everything can be explained by this kind of paranoid logic. In fact, paranoia is really nothing more than the use of reason and logic in the service of the irrational and bizarre.
  • Are you poor? Someone must have robbed you of what you are entitled to!
  • Are you angry and experiencing hatred, but like to think of yourself as a loving, compassionate sort of person? Then the object of your hatred magically becomes the one who hates...you!
  • Is your genius not universally recognized? You must have powerful enemies that prevent you from achieving the success you know should be yours.
  • Have you made mistakes in your life? Someone has clearly tricked you into acting a certain way otherwise you wouldn't have.
Has you ideology continually and repeatedly failed in the real world and resulted in death and misery for all who implement it? Take heart! It is not your fault or your ideology's! Either it wasn't implemented virutously enough; or there were evil [Republican, Neocon, Male, White, Christian, Jewish] forces (choose one or more) that have been plotting against it!

The above mental gymnastics allow the paranoid person to externalize blame and avoid responsibility for his situation in life, as well as his own feelings. It is always someone else's fault and not his. It is always someone else who is experiencing the objectionable feelings, and he is always the victim of it.

In addition to externalizing blame for one's own pitiful situation in life, there is yet another advantage to paranoia and projection: very often, a creative distortion of reality can reliably pump up one's own self-esteem! You are the righteous; persecuting the true racists thus proving you, yourself, are incapable of any racist thoughts or emotions! Aren't you wonderful?

Sometimes, it pumps it that self-esteem up at the expense of a great deal of fear; but nevertheless, it is comforting to know that someone appreciates your genius or the threat you represent. Clearly if the CIA, FBI, aliens, Jews , POTUS, Republicans, Blackwater, Halliburton, Big Oil [--fill in your favorite bogeyman here--] are out to get you, you must be very special and unique indeed.

In short, paranoia and its baby brother projection organize and distort reality in a way that makes it palatable; and, at the same time help the user to avoid recognizing some unpleasant truths about himself. When practiced on a societal or cultural level, it accomplishes the same thing on a larger scale. All you have to do is eliminate the external problem and everything will be all right and you'll never have to question your beliefs--or say you are sorry-- again.

The con artist does this consciously and deliberately and understands the effectiveness of the psychological maneuver. Con artists come in all sorts of political stripes, of course, but in our day the great examples are pretty much exclusive to the political left, because the vast majority of the left's minions have such an intense need to appear virtuous. In fact, the appearance of virtue in themselves is much more important than any other reality.

Reality is always redrawn in order to pump up their own righteousness and virtue. Anyone who opposes their policies is automatically branded as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic-- take your pick, depending on the circumstances.

Hell, anyone who offers ANY new ideas in these areas are automatically branded with one of the "isms".

In the example above where the Darfur Minister of Defense lays the blame for the genocide on the Jews, he is just drawing from a similar tradition that runs through the most dysfunctional threads of Islam. The Jews are responsible for the misery of the Palestinians (it is never the Palestinians own fault); the Jews ritually eat the blood of Muslim babies; plot to destroy Islam; and are guilty of all sorts of atrocities and convoluted plots to take over the world (reference the Protocols of the Elders of Zion).

It is useless to point out the truth to people in the grip of these kind of paranoid delusions. It is just so easy to attribute one's own cynical motives and unacceptable feelings to others, particularly when such attribution is culturally sanctioned.

It is inconceivable to paranoid persons that people actually exist who view the situation differently from them. It is inconceivable that they could be wrong about their perception of reality. Con men always think others are out to con them. In fact, most paranoids consider themselves the ONLY reality-based community, because they get to define what reality is and it is always what they happen to feel. And it is always about making sure they feel good and virtuous and self-righteous.

Paranoia and projection also provide a rationale and justification (to the paranoid, at least) for acting out against those who--from their perspective-- stand in the way of implementing their social programs; or will not submit to the will of their god (whoever and whatever it may be).

Oh, and by the way: DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that only psychiatric patients who have a serious mental illness utilize these defense mechanisms. Paranoia is a symptom of many mental illnesses; but both paranoia and projection are also physiological states of the brain that can be achieved by otherwise "normal" people under the proper circumstances. The distortion of reality that occurs with the use of these defenses is always done to serve inner psychological needs.

Paranoia and projection as psychological defenses used by otherwise normal people are not mental illnesses that can be "cured" by mass quantities of antipsychotic medication in the water supply. Instead, they represent a distortion of reality that occurs in order to meet the inner needs of a crumbling self (or a crumbling ideology, culture, or society) that cannot otherwise be psychologically sustained.

To those who are using such a defense, their behavior and rhetoric seem perfectly logical and internally consistent. It is, in fact, as impeccable as any reasoning can be--considering that it originates from distorted premises. Paranoia has been referred to as "the rational in the service of the irrational" for good reasons.

And, by that kind of "logic" it makes perfect sense to use the maximum force possible to destroy those who the paranoid believes are responsible for the evil: e.g., all those absurd conspiracies that are wholeheartedly supported by the left that claim Bush and Cheney downed the twin towers; and have those who oppose them murdered. All those absurd theories that the Israelis created a disease that is specific to Arab genes or that the fictional Protocols are behind the lack of Nobel Prizes for Muslims; or even that the genocide in Darfur is just another Jewish conspiracy. These kind of paranoid fantasies all comes from the same psychological source.

As long as they maintain those delusions, they do not have to deal with the sad state of their own culture; their own sick religion; or their pathetic ideological inadequacies.

Thank you, Mr. Palermo and The Huffington Post for pointing that out for us so clearly.

Friday, January 04, 2008

THE REAL AUDACITY OF HOPE

From StrategyPage:
Where Have All The Dead Americans Gone?
U.S. forces suffered 107 casualties (dead and wounded) for the month of December in Iraq. Twelve months previously (December, 2006), there were 817. In between there was a bloody campaign, called "the surge," which caused most of the 6,801 casualties American troops suffered that year. In 2006 there were 7,221 casualties.

The U.S. always put a premium on keeping American casualties down. This led to tactics, equipment and weapons designed to get the job done, with the fewest American dead and wounded. As a result, the casualty rate in Iraq was less than half what it was in Vietnam. There was also an emphasis on keeping civilian casualties down. It was difficult for most Americans to realize this, given the media's fixation on real or imagined atrocities. In Iraq, over 90 percent of civilian casualties were inflicted by other Iraqis. The military encouraged the media to not cover the many procedures ("rules of engagement" or ROE) U.S. troops follow to avoid civilian losses. This was because the enemy would exploit those ROEs as much as possible.

In hindsight, U.S. troops will get credit for keeping their own casualties down to historically low levels (compared to any other 20th century conflict). Professional soldiers have already recognized this feat, and are studying American techniques intensively. Less well appreciated are the efforts the Americans made to keep civilian losses down. But foreign military experts are coming to appreciate that this aspect of the war paid long term benefits. Iraqis saw, day by day, the efforts by American troops to avoid hurting civilians. Initially, Iraqis saw that as an American weakness, but in the long run they recognized it as a sensibility rarely seen in the Middle East. This will have long term consequences for relations between the United States and Iraq.


All this, of course, means very little to the utopian peacebots of the antiwar movement who don't live in the real world anyway; as well as to the more adolescent and simplistic of the candidates running for President these days.

Bill Whittle has a thought-provoking analysis (in two parts) of "Forty Second Boyd" and how the U.S. Military has been transformed against fierce resistence on many levels to be more adaptable and effective in 21st century battlefields.

And, when the history books look back on this era, people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld---as well as General Petraeus-- will earn their share of the credit for the transformation. Whittle makes one excellent point at the end of this long, but rewarding article:
And as for the Surge, I am struck by one thought, and that is this: It seems clear now that we needed more troops in theater from Day One. But I think the spectacular success of the Surge is due less to the number of boots on the ground than it is to something far more important.

Looking back on the rise of the insurgency, it seems as if the average Iraqi did not know what to make of America. I suspect that many would have been far more supportive a long time ago, if it were not for the image of a helicopter atop a building in 1975 and a line of desperate people running for their lives. To work with Americans may have been what many wanted to do much, much sooner.

But…

When Michael Moore makes a hugely successful film praising Saddam’s paradise and calling these people who bomb women and children in marketplaces “freedom fighters,” and when an election turns and places into Congressional power a political party dedicated to reproducing that helicopter tableau as soon as possible... what would you do? Because if you guess wrong and the Americans leave, you will be taken out into the street in front of your family and have your head sawed off.

I think the Surge has had spectacular success not because of the additional troops so much as for the fact that when the media and the Democrats demanded we cut and run… we did not cut and run. We doubled down. When the calls for defeat and dishonor were at their loudest – sad to say a not unwarranted street rep we had made for ourselves – somehow, somehow we simply just hung on and gave them not a retreat but a charge.

Jesus Christ, but that must have gotten someone’s attention. Yes, the Surge is working. But I believe it is not a surge of boots that is doing the work so much as it is a surge of hope.


Ah yes. Let us call what Whittle is describing the real world version of the so-called "audacity of hope", a phrase which has been regularly overused by the usual leftist utopian hucksters to appeal to the fantasies and everyday delusions of the masses.

For hope to be meaningful, it must be reality-based (yet another term rather inappropriately appropriated by the delusional denizens of the left). "Reclaiming the American Dream" (the subtitle of Obama's book) is more than just mouthing the socialist platitudes and promising eternal peace and plenty. It means going back to promoting the fundamental values--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--which make those hopes possible, and which formed the basis for creating this wonderful country to begin with.

It means facing the real world and dealing with the threats that exist, not ignoring them and pandering to human proclivity for psychological denial of reality. It means facing the real enemies of life and freedom; not giving those enemies a free pass and pretending that imperfection in the forces of good is the only "evil" that matters (psychological displacement). It means more than the empty promises of politicians.

In short, sometimes it means choosing to do what is hard and sticking to it because it is right.

Or, another way of understanding the real audacity of hope is the conversation between Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath in "The Two Towers":

I can't do this Sam.";

"I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.";

"What are we holding on to Sam?";

"That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for."


The courageous men and women of our military services know what is worth fighting for; Forty Second Boyd knew what was worth fighting for; and, my audacious hope is that the American people will once again remember what is worth fighting for; and break out of the self-induced mental fog many have slipped into to avoid an unpleasant and frightening reality bearing down on them.

Because, it really matters.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

A BUNCH OF CARDS...PRETTY MUCH ALL JOKERS



Not to mention Edwards, who plays the "class warfare" card while using his Mastercard....



I have an idea. Why don't we pick our Presidents every 4 years via an American Idol type of show--where people who aspire to the office have to compete head to head every week and are voted off based on their performance. No commercials; no attack ads; just raw talent--at being able to communicate ideas and values of substance.

Somewhere in all the contestants jockeying for a vote, there's bound to be a Paul Potts--or someone you least expect--who turns out to be exceptionally well-qualified to lead the free world; a diamond in the rough, who is not just a polished joker who says what everyone expects, and promises what no one can deliver.

Because frankly, I'm sick of professional politicians.


Related: see "Iowa, Fiddling On The Roof"

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

A PRESCIENT PODCAST ?

On the November 26, 2007 podcast, The Sanity Squad interviewed Fatima Bhutto, who chatted with us about her country, it's current President, as well as her famous Aunt Benazir. If you haven't had a chance to listen to that podcast, you should check it out.

The following is excerpted from SC&A's site, where he discusses a recent article about the Bhutto dynasty in Pakistani politics. Siggy has posteda series of scathing articles on Benazir Bhutto (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). Below is the just most recent chapter in the ongoing Bhutto saga.

*********

Fausta links to the next chapter in the Bhutto soap opera:
The head of the Bhutto tribe, a founding member of the Pakistan Peoples Party, has rejected the appointment of Benazir Bhutto’s husband and son to lead the group and predicted that it will split the party.

Mumtaz Bhutto’s comments threaten to reopen the deep fissures in the family, Pakistan’s foremost political dynasty. The Bhuttos started to fall out after the 1979 execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the nation’s first elected prime minister who turned the Peoples Party into its most potent political force.

The article goes on to note that

Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir’s widower, was unrelated to the Bhuttos, while his son, Bilawal, carried the name Zardari until his mother was assassinated last week, when he took on Bhutto as his middle name.

“The party has come into existence on the name and the sweat and the blood of the Bhutto family,” said Mumtaz, 74, a long-time critic of Benazir who lives on a grand country estate in Mirpur Bhutto, the original family village in Sindh province. “Therefore, the leadership should either have gone to Sanam or Murtaza’s son or daughter.”


One contender might be Fatima Bhutto, daughter of Murtaza Bhutto. There are many who believe that Murtaza Bhutto was murdered on the orders Benazir Bhutto. That tragic event was one of the reasons Benazir Bhutto was forced from office before her term ended.

The Sanity Squad’s interview with Fatima Bhutto can be found here.

In light of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination and the subsequent political abyss upon which Pakistan teeters , the interview proved to be prescient. Listeners are offered some real insight into the political quagmire that is Pakistan. Given that nation’s nuclear capability, instability is a danger that cannot be overlooked.

After the Sanity Squad podcast, we wrote A Hero In The Making?, in which we took hard look at a potential political powerhouse. She answered troubling questions head on:

Ms Bhutto answered questions about the current state of affairs in Pakistan and what the future may hold. She discussed the the radical Islamists that have made inroads into Pakistani politics, the legacy of corruption that has plagued Pakistan for decades and the challenges that nation faces.

Ms Bhutto answered questions about the current state of affairs in Pakistan and what the future may hold. She discussed the the radical Islamists that have made inroads into Pakistani politics, the legacy of corruption that has plagued Pakistan for decades and the challenges that nation faces.

Ms Bhutto also addressed some tough questions about her support for Hugo Chavez (she sees the Venezuelan anti poverty and literacy programs as a model for Pakistan). She also recognizes the danger terror poses both inside and outside Pakistan’s borders.

Educated in the US and Great Britain, Fatima Bhutto is an eloquent and passionate advocate about the future of her native Pakistan. Whether or not she can transfer that passion into a plan that will lead her country into a democratic and economically state remains to be seen.

Of course, her ideas alone will not determine Pakistan’s future. That destiny will be determined by the Pakistanis themselves. They will have to recognize reject past failures and embrace real democratic values.

Again, check out The Sanity Squad Podcast to get some insight into the person who may well become the next visible Bhutto in Pakistani politics.

IN 2008 YOU CAN LOSE THOSE EXTRA POUNDS & LIVE FOREVER !

Or not.

Here is a fascinating article from Jacob Sullum at Reason, reviewing two new books out about obesity (see the links at the bottom for the books). Here are three excerpts from this fascinating article:
Gina Kolata says losing weight is nearly impossible. Brian Wansink says it’s easy. But they don’t really contradict each other, because they’re talking about different kinds of weight loss.
Although their new books offer very different messages for dieters, Kolata and Wansink share a suspicion of collectivist responses to the “obesity epidemic.” Both writers are intensely interested in the question of why people weigh as much as they do, but they do not leap from research findings to policy prescriptions aimed at making us thinner by restricting our choices. At a time when almost every discussion of weight in America seems to end with a list of things the government should do about it, their restraint is commendable....

Kolata’s discussion of obesity research suggests that false hope is not limited to people trying to lose weight. Scientists too are perpetually reaching for a weight loss key that always seems just beyond their fingertips: the right diet, the right drug, the right hormone.

Kolata’s main explanation for the failure of these efforts is that people are genetically programmed for a certain weight range, which varies widely from one individual to another. Twin studies indicate that genetic differences account for something like 70 percent of variation in weight. “The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range” of “20 to 30 pounds,” Kolata writes. While losing 20 or 30 pounds would count as success for most Americans whom the government considers overweight, it would be just a start for the study subjects on whom Kolata focuses.

The idea of predetermined weight ranges is consistent with much everyday experience: People tend to return to a particular weight after gaining a few pounds from holiday overeating, for example, or after losing pounds during an illness. It also jibes with the complaints of people who say they easily gain weight while friends can eat whatever they want and stay thin....

Despite their differences in tone and focus, Kolata and Wansink are equally unenthusiastic about proposals by fat warriors such as Yale obesity expert Kelly Brownell to reshape Americans by reshaping our “food environment” through propaganda, censorship, taxes, and regulation. Kolata says there’s no reason to think the government knows how to make people thinner. She notes that even well-funded, intensive efforts aimed at slimming down captive audiences of schoolchildren have produced disappointing results, making proposals such as restricting cereal commercials, banning soda machines from schools, and distributing federally funded fruit to students look even lamer.

Wansink, for his part, says labeling and education don’t make much of a difference, and “we cannot legislate or tax people into eating Brussels sprouts.”


I was one of the few physicians way back when "Big Tobacco" was being vilified, to point out to my collegues that smoking was a choice made by individuals and that teaching those individuals that they were simply the victims of evil businessmen who wanted them to get lung cancer would be non-productive. But it has become clear that the tobacco insanity--i.e., telling people they are not responsible for the choices they make and blaming business-- has opened the door to further absurdities, such as big government-types telling us what and how much to eat; that we must exercise; we must do this, we must do that blah blah blah.

Can the goal of these do-gooders be any clearer that this quote from a recent Mark Steyn blog post:
Bigshot eco-panjandrum lays down the law:
Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."


Think about the implications of that last sentence, and understand exactly what kind of society Hillman--and by extension, the fat police--are advocating.

Of course, I constantly encourage individuals to be responsible in their personal choices -- but I never forget that it is their choice, not mine.

Notwithstanding the fact that there certainly are some people with physiological and biological defects which result in severe, morbid obesity requiring serious and long-term medical intervention; most run-of-the-mill obesity and overweight is a matter of genetic programming combined with personal lifestyle choices. I have nothing against people who want to lose weight to look and feel better. Go for it!

The underlying societal problem, it seems to me, is not obesity, per se; it is that. as we as a society increasingly demand that government take over health care insurance (e.g., medicare, medicaid, etc.) and pay for health care, we have opened the door to justifications to intrude on our everyday personal choices--like what to eat.

This is by far a greater threat to our individual liberty than anything ever written in the Patriot Act but there is hardly a word spoken against this sort of obscene violation of our personal freedom, and it is promoted relentlessly by the political left.

In 2004, Ed Hudgens, wrote an excellent essay on this very subject, which I have kept in my files:
OBESE MEDICARE AND FATHEADED POLITICIANS

In the mid-1990s I used to argue against the war on tobacco as follows: Supposedly 400,000 individuals die each year because of smoking. (It's closer to 200,000; the government fakes the numbers, but that's another story.) Since governments pick up many of the health-care costs of people who are sick from smoking, governments claim the right to wage a war on tobacco. But nearly as many individuals allegedly die from bad diets and lack of exercise. By this logic, it will only be a matter of time before you're limited to two Big Macs per month, potato chips are kept behind the counter and not sold to anyone under 18, and there's a five-day waiting period to buy Twinkies so government bureaucrats can check your medical records.

My reductio ad absurbum is one step closer to surrealist reality, thanks to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson who has now defined obesity under Medicare as a "disease." Thompson is on a jihad against extra pounds and expanding waistlines in this country. This change in the Medicare rules undermines freedom on four fronts.

First, lots of Americans have unhealthy eating habits. But obesity is not a "disease"; it is the result of poor choices and habits over which individuals have control. Yes, some might be more prone to binge on chips, chocolate or other tasty treats, but the difference between we humans and dumb animals is that we can control our appetites; we can develop the good habits and practices necessary to live healthy lives. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we are not in control of ourselves and are not responsible for our actions and thus undeserving of freedom.

Second, by classifying obesity as a disease, Thompson has created a new, multi-billion-dollar government entitlement, without congressional approval, that will bloat an already monstrously obese Medicare program. Let's remember that when Medicare was created in 1965 the federal government estimated that it would cost $9 billion per year by 1990; instead it cost more than $66 billion that year. Today it costs about $275 billion with another $160 billion going to Medicaid to provide health care for the poor. And let's remember that in 2003, when the Bush administration proposed its new Medicare prescription drug benefit, it estimated the cost over the first decade at $400 billion. The ink of the president's signature on the legislation was barely dry when the administration announced that, oops, it had miscalculated; the cost would actually be $534 billion.

Third, this new entitlement removes a principal and powerful incentive for individuals to treat their bodies in a responsible manner. If individuals believe the government - read, their fellow taxpayers -- will pick up the tab for their poor dietary choices, paying for their Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig, their stomach-stapling surgery or clogged artery treatments, they will be less likely to take their health into their own hands.

Fourth, aggressive government diet controls cannot be far behind. With government paying the bill comes government control. As Medicare costs rose in past decades, the feds tried to save money by creating and forcing people into Health Maintenance Organizations that provide poor service, thus harming health. They also fine and even jail doctors for paperwork mistakes in Medicare filings, which are impossible to avoid because of the thousands of pages of incomprehensible Medicare regulations, thus driving many doctors, sick of being persecuted for curing patients, into early retirement.We now can expect the food fascists in this country -- those who want to restrict or ban foods of which they don't approve -- to join with the government - the guys with the guns - to make sure you only eat what they want you to eat.Obesity and poor health habits are certainly problems in this country. But the solution lies in true personal responsibility, a sense that one's life is so important and of such value that one would commit moral treason to one's self by allowing one's body to fall into disrepair.

A greater threat to the health of our country is the obese size of government, with Medicare the overweight poster child that illustrates the danger to the heart of our liberties. Our biggest problem is not with fat in our waistlines but, rather, in the heads of politicians who want to micromanage our lives. The lesson of HHS's classification of obesity as a "disease" is that the government should go on a diet, shedding hundreds of billions in needless spending, starting with the entire Medicare program.


Amen, brother. Or, should I say, "Amen, Big brother"?

The authors reviewed by Sullum suggest that:
Many of the health risks associated with obesity may be due to the poor diets and sedentary habits associated with fatness rather than the extra pounds per se. Kolata notes that it’s unclear whether exceeding the government’s recommended weight range is inherently hazardous or whether fat people who become thinner thereby become healthier. Yet scientists who point out such inconvenient facts can expect to be pilloried for failing to toe the party line. Kolata describes the dismay of two researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Katherine Flegal and David Williamson, at the anger they provoked from their colleagues by suggesting that the death toll the government had attributed to excessive weight was greatly exaggerated.


Most of you probably don't remember how the Center for Disease Control rapidly backpedaled on its OBESITY = DEATH meme back in 2005 when some interesting data came to light. What researchers found was that being UNDERWEIGHT is associated with more deaths than being OVERWEIGHT. Here's the scoop on that:
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.

Which reminds me of several scenes from Woody Allen's classic 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!


Tuesday, January 01, 2008

STARTING THE NEW YEAR RIGHT

From The Sun:
BRITISH commandos launched a devastating blitz on the Taliban – as the evil terrorists held a party to celebrate Benazir Bhutto’s murder.

The dawn raid was staged after messages were intercepted about the sick knees-up in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

Royal Marines crept into position as the fanatics partied the night away just hours after Ms Bhutto was killed in Pakistan.

The bash was being held in ruined compounds a few hundred yards from Our Boys’ remote base in Kajaki.

Ragtag Taliban sentries tried to hit back with machine gun fire – but stood no chance against the heroes of 40 Commando’s Charlie Company.


Bloodthirsty

The terrorists were pounded with mortars, rockets and heavy machine guns.

Two bloodthirsty revellers trying to creep towards Our Boys in a trench were spotted by thermal-imaging equipment – and targeted with a Javelin heat-seeking missile.

The £65,000 rocket – designed to stop Soviet tanks – locked on to their body heat and tore more than a kilometer across the desert in seconds.

Troop Sergeant Dominic Conway, 32 – who directed mortar rounds – grinned: “It must have had quite a detrimental effect on their morale.”


I have to admit that this is the sort of terribly biased reporting I like in a war. I'm sure NPR would have had a sensitive, caring journalist interview the Taliban commander for his perspective, and given a scorching analysis of the amount of horrific oppression the poor Taliban has had to endure for the last six years or so.

So, lift up your glasses and give a toast to the bloodthirsty Brits! As far as I'm concerned, they have started the new year right.

HAPPY NEW YEAR !

Spend the day recovering from the excesses of the night before...



And have a happy, healthy, and prosperous year in 2008 !