STAND AGAINST THE DARKNESS

Yes, 'pierre', I am on a LOTR kick today. I consider it the story for our times.

Frodo: I can't do this, Sam.
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.
Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.
-The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers


The Dark is rising. You can feel it as clearly as the elves of Tolkien's Middle Earth felt the rise of Sauron. Thuggish world leaders openly declare their intent to anhilate America and all who stand in the way of world domination; and the world yawns:

On Tuesday Iran announced it was installing 6,000 more centrifuges -- they produce enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon -- in addition to the 3,000 already operating. The world yawned.

It is time to admit the truth: The Bush administration's attempt to halt Iran's nuclear program has failed. Utterly. The latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions, which took a year to achieve, is comically weak. It represents the end of the sanctions road.

At home, the president's efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program were irreparably undermined by November's National Intelligence Estimate, whose "moderate confidence" that Iran has not restarted nuclear weaponization -- the least important of three elements of any nuclear program -- has promoted the illusion that Iran has given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yet uranium enrichment, the most difficult step, proceeds apace, as does the development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.

The president is out of options. He is going to hand over to his successor an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert.

Krauthammer proposes a "Holocaust Declaration", which says:

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."

This should be followed with a simple explanation: "As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

But it is clear from every piece of evidence at our disposal, that Ahmadinejad is a fanatic's fanatic who will not deter his genocidal vision because of a few million piddly human deaths or worldwide destruction, even if people in his own country suffer for it. He is completely irrational and would like nothing better than to be the Islamic 'hero' who ushers in the apocalypse for the 12th Imam.

It is true that behind this fruitcake, there are the Iranian mullahs, who may be religious, but are not stupid. They use Ahmadinejad to jab at the West and draw blood, then pull him back. Their goal is power, and they realize that you can't have power if you are dead. Ahmadinejad may think he calls the shots, but the mullahs, however immoderate and provocative are the ones with real power.

The question is, how far will the mullahs let the madman go? Would they let him "wipe Israel off the map", if they thought the world, i.e., the U.S., would do nothing? I think they would, simply because if they could get away with it, then it would completely consolidate their power as the real "leaders" of Islam--the ones who elimated the hated Jewish State, the poisonous thorn in the side of the Islamic world.

Can we base our security and that of Israel's on the hope that the mullahs may be immoderate, but perhaps not irrational?

God help us if we rely solely on such a vain hope--particularly if the Democrats get back into power.

Because, you see, Iran and the rest of the terrorists are patiently waiting. They are waiting for the Democrats--with all their inherent moral weakness and confusion; the Iranians are waiting because they perceive fear, appeasement, defeat, and surrender in the Democratic rhetoric and behavior. They know that as soon as an Obama gets elected, they will be home free and will not have to suffer any consequences for wiping Israel off the map--from the U.S., anyway. They will be able to do as they like without interference.

The dithering Democrats will excuse, rationalize and basically look for any reason to exculpate any atrocity Iran initiates, because they are 'the party of peace' and they just know they can talk to lunatics and trust them.

They Iranians know that today's Democrats will not stand against the darkness; instead they will simply turn off the lights and dwell in the dark without protest--then say it is a good thing.

NO "GET OUT OF WAR" CARD

Michael Ledeen reminds us that even if the Democrats succeed in surrendering Iraq, it will not get us out of war. He quotes from The Mesopotamian, an Iraqi blogger:

The solution of the Iraqi situation cannot be helped by trying to find scapegoats and excuses to run away and escape. The formulae expounded by the Democrats amount to nothing but defeat and escapism. The problem is that this is a situation where defeat is fatal. If anybody thinks that the U.S. can run away this time, and sits safely and happily in tranquil isolation between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, is in grave error. Solutions can be found to reduce casualties and expenses, but the strategic involvement of the U.S. in Iraq is a necessary and sufficient condition to avert a disaster the scale of which boggles the mind. A disaster that is infinitely more serious and dangerous than the aftermath of the Vietnam defeat. Because the Vietnamese had a clear objective, i.e. to unify their country and once that this objective had been achieved, they had no more business with the U.S. and the West. In the case of Iraq, the objectives and purposes of the enemy are fundamentally different, as has been expounded “maint fois” by people of the like of Al-Zawahiri et. al.; so many times have we heard Al-Qaeda leaders affirm that they consider Iraq the central front in their International Jihad campaign, and as being the more appropriate battle ground, being in the heart of the Arab world and so near to the holy lands apropos to which they share the sick visions of certain of their western (and non-western) counterparts of Armageddon’s and Apocalypses and all such kinds of nonsense and legend.

Indeed.

Now, let us consider some recent words uttered by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who is recovering from a major defeat in trying to take control of events in Iraq (clearly the Iranian Prez is much more clever guy than all the Democrat leaders combined-- for realizing the strategic importance of Iraq in the greater war we are engaged in):

Mashhad, 10 April (AKI) - Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday his country's objective was to destroy what he called corrupt western powers.
"Our objective is to annihilate all corrupt powers that dominate our planet today," said Ahmadinejad.

He was speaking in the holy Shia city of Mashhad, located 850 kilometres east of the Iranian capital Tehran at an event where he met Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade.

Ahmadinejad also "advised" western powers to repent or, "otherwise Iranians will hoist their flag on the roof of their buildings."...

The all-encompassing hatred of the West that lies at the core of the Islamic totalitarian ideology--bothe the Sunni and Shia versions-- is what we are fighting against; and one of the crucial fronts in this war is in Iraq.

But, as I have argued numerous times, Iraq is also a key front on a philosophical war with today's postmodern political left, who seem to share with the Islamists that same all-encompassing hatred of the West and its values. Indeed, they share it with anyone who hates freedom and democracy and are only too happy to cozy up to the tyrant du jour and work closely with them for 'peace'. They draw a line, though, when it comes to working with a Republican President of the US.

For both of those reasons, we must develop a strategy that will "finish the job and not leave a mess"--in other words, to defeat both the barbarians from without who violently threaten Western Civilization and seek a physical return to the Dark Ages; as well as the barbarians from within who seek to undermine and destroy Western Civilization with their smarmy politically correct ideology, whose words and dogmatically righteous platitudes effectively enable and encourage the evil that threatens us.

My position is unequivocally that both ideologies must be defeated by the forces of good in Iraq and everywhere they have taken root.

There is no 'get out of war' card to be played, because (to paraphrase Aragorn's remark to Theoden, who does not want to risk a war with Saruman) 'open war is upon us whether we would risk it or not'--and it is being fought on the battlefield in Iraq and in the defeatism and nihilism of all the Democratic party Wormtongues.

It will inexorably come to us even if we try to run away from it in Iraq, because its goal is our annihilation.

CONDI RICE FOR VP ?

PRO and CON

I really like and admire Condi Rice. Always have. I liked her better when she was National Security Advisor, however. Since becoming Secretary of State the "diplomatic" aspects of her job (i.e., having to suck up to thugs both nationally and internationally) have dulled some of the appreciation I once had for her intellect and capabilities. This is probably not her fault as much as it is the necessity of the job itself; and the godawful ideological mess the entire State Department has evolved into over the years.

She says she wants to go back to Stanford and maybe someday be the NFL Commissioner....but in that cagey way politicians seem to always develop, she managed to leave an opening for an end run at the VP slot.

One thing is for sure, McCain will have to come up with a star and "make a splash" (as Lowry says), and Condi fits the bill. She has light years more experience than the holy oracle of hope and change (and she didn't have to stay at a Holiday Inn Express, either); and she didn't get to where she is today by hitching herself to the coattails of a husband.

Yep. You gotta admire the woman.



Cartoons by Gary Varvel

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DENIAL

The consequences of psychological denial can be seen every day in today's world; and particularly in the Democratically controlled United States Congress. All you have to do is watch these intellectual and moral giants in action (e.g., as in the recent hearings on Iraq) for even a brief moment and you likely will come away with the sense that something is terribly wrong with them. These posturing peacocks strut around acting like they are little gods and goddesses, oblivious to the fact that others perceive them as fools and clowns.

But that is one of the incredibly wonderful aspects of psychological denial.

In the vacuous recesses of their own minds, those who deny reality manage to convince themselves that they are "reality-based". One might justifiably ask them why they have an almost obsessive need to so aggressively tout their connection to reality, like some sort of celebrity name-dropper expecting to increase his stature in the eyes of the world: "Oh, by the way, did you know that I'm reality-based?"

Sadly for them, just because one repeatedly claims a close connection to the Big R, does not prove anything one way or the other; nor does it absolve the boaster of providing the requisite evidence to back up their claim. Feelings won't do, I'm afraid; though it is often to those arguments of emotion that the denier will ultimately resort when impeded in his quest to avoid reality.

As a psychiatrist, I would be the last person to suggest that even a primitive and immature psychological defense mechanism like denial didn't have some positive results for the individuals who use it. Obviously, if it resulted in the outright death or dismemberment of the person using it, denial would probably not last long as a viable strategy in the real world; nor would it be particularly helpful for the species as a whole.

The truth is that frequently denial works--at least for a short while--and that is why it is so often resorted to in extremis.

Some of the positive consequences of psychological denial include:

• In the short-term, psychological denial can help a person maintain their sanity--which would be threatened by awareness of a painful truth or reality
• In the short-term, denial can help a person function day to day
• In the short-term, denial can prevent a person from having to acknowledge painful thoughts, feelings or behavior and help them maintain a world view threatened by an unacceptable reality or truth

The operative word in all of the above is "in the short-term." In the short-term, even the unhealthiest of defenses--such as denial, projection, paranoia-- may be creative, healthy, comforting, and coping. And, while their use may strike observers as downright peculiar at times, in the short-term, they may be transiently adaptive.

In fact, psychological denial is a way to integrate one's experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. It creatively rearranges the sources of conflict the individual faces so that the conflict becomes manageable.

To some extent, all psychological defenses ultimately function to deny reality. Just the other day, I discussed psychological displacement, for example--the mechanism that underlies Bush Derangement Syndrome--as a way of avoiding dealing with a really threatening and/or painful truth by focusing on a less threatening object:

As we finish the last two years of Bush's Presidency, we are witnessing "end stage" Bush Derangement Syndrome, which manifests itself by the histrionic and blind hatred of anything the President does or does not do.

This "end stage" BDS--like terminal syphilis--has culminated in blindness combined with an insanity so profound, the consequences to those who suffer it--as well as to our country--will likely be quite profound, if not lethal, since they hinder and undermine this country's ability to deal with real threats. (read it all for the full context of this type of denial)

Let's consider some of the negative consequences of psychological denial:

• In the longer-term, denial requires a continued compromises with reality to maintain the pretense that "Everything is fine!" or "If only X would happen, everything would be fine!" Eventually, delusional thinking, along with paranoia and its inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time. (see all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists for examples in our own country; or the more recent comments of former President Clinton--once considered a "moderate" democrat, who now fully adheres to the model that the Republicans have manufactured a culture of fear in order to fool the American public into thinking we are at war (read the transcript linked below). See here and here for some examples in the Muslim world, which is rife with conspiracies and which could not exist as a cohesive society without them).

• The denier must then place the blame for the unacceptable reality on someone else and that leads to increased conflict between those who are in denial and those who aren't. Efforts to maintain their denial consumes them and will lead them to escalate their anger and rage as their denial becomes untenable and ever more obvious.

• The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior(examples of this are too numerous to mention, but I have discussed it here , here and here) . Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.

• The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy (check out the "peacefulness" and "reasonable" slogans chanted at most antiwar rallies these days). Check out, for example, the attacks and attempts to silence authors like Mark Steyn because his book , America Alone, discusses the genocidal demographic trajectory of Europe as they refuse to acknowledge or deal with the reality of Islamic immigration.

[ NOTE: Considering the fact that Europe has taken this track before in recent memory, Steyn is more of a Delphic oracle, rather than the genocidal maniac he is being portrayed as by those who would also deny reality. Nevertheless, his Canadian Inquisitors--otherwise known as "Human Rights Commission" kangaroo court find him guilty--without benefit of trial:

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.

So in effect the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission, the world in labiaplasty jurisprudence, have decided that, even though they don't have the guts to hear the case, they might as well find us guilty. Ingenious! After all, if the federal Human Rights Commission hadn't been so foolish enough to drag Marc Lemire to trial, their bizarre habits of posting their own hate messages using telecommunications fraud and identity theft would never have come to light. If they'd simply skipped the trial and declared Mr Lemire guilty anyway, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.

So, having concluded they couldn't withstand the heat of a trial, the OHRC cut to the chase and gave us a drive-thru conviction. Who says Canada's "human rights" racket is incapable of reform? As kangaroo courts go, the Ontario branch is showing a bit more bounce than the Ottawa lads.

]

• Problem solving and decision-making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are "blamed" for the reality that does not conform to the denier's worldview. (consider the lack of any specific ideas in the Democratic party's agenda; or it's reflex negativity toward any substantive position or any compromise offered to them.

• In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier's frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.

• Finally, in the long-term, denial will always bring great harm to the individual using it and all who happen to be in his sphere of influence. It may lead to his death or many deaths when practiced by groups or larger societies. It will certainly leads to all sorts of dysfunction and destructiveness; even if--for a brief time--the denial gave the individual or group a sense of calm or control over their world because it blocked out the forces that threatened to upend that world.

The Democratic party's consensus on Iraq varies from day to day; First it was ("Victory is not an option") ; then: the Surge can't possibly work; next, the Surge isn't working; when it was clear the Surge was working, their response is, so what?

Never have so many been willing to deny so much reality. Any success is an unacceptable reality for them, thus they must distort it in order to maintain their sense of self.

Every person in denial has a hidden psychological agenda--which, in this case, is nothing less than the defeat and humiliation of George W. Bush, the Republicans, and America so that they can return to their 'rightful"' (or should it be leftful) place in power.

Their rhetoric is designed to obfuscate and deny objective reality --which interestingly is a concept they don't even believe in to begin with (or, they believe in it until it become threatening then they seek refuge behind postmodern political rhetoric). The motivation for their continual Bush/Republican bashing is simple: Bush is the current symbol of the left's ideological demise, as its ideology is tossed into the trashbin of history. He is the fly in their utopian ointment; the light shining in their darkness.

Despite the wins in the 2006 midterm elections during which Democrats obtained a small majority in Congress, life has actually been going very badly for the political left in general.

As the real world presses in on them, their voices have become more shrill and hysterical; their rage is escalating out of control. No longer do most of them even bother to argue their points logically; they simply loudly denounce any idea or person who threatens their ideology; or deliberately and with the ruthless finesse of all tyrants and thugs, simply attempt to silence all dissenting opinions. (See the style of one of their heroes for an example of this)

9/11 did not wake them up; rather it forced them to openly move toward what they have supported surreptitiously all along--the elimination of free speech in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism; a dictatorship where the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct priesthood rule; and complete control over the lives of others (for their own good, of course!).

Since their objectives happen to parallel those of the Islamic terrorists, they care not that their behavior enables and encourages the terrorist's agenda. They blithely denounce America and the principles of freedom and democracy out of one side of their mouth, while remaining convinced that their actions are patriotic and are representative of "true" American values.

A while back, I listened in disbelief as Democrat after Democrat denounced the compromise bill that defines for detainees what torture is and isn't. To a person, they paid lip-service to being against torture (whatever it might be); and to a person it was obvious that the detainees "rights" were paramount. How strange that they don't give individuals in our own society the same "rights" to express their religion as they would like in public; or that they denounce opinions with which they differ with such passion. How nice it would be to see them behave consistently for a change....but it isn't going to happen because they just don't get it.

I'm sure that the recent court decision about all this will stimulate even more histrionic moral outrage--particularly since the outrage conveniently obscures the reality that we are at war with an implacable enemy that wants to kill us all.

That's what denial is all about. It allows--nay, it encourages-- the most blatant contradictions in thinking; and the individual does not ever have to account for those contradictions or take responsibility for them because they don't even perceive them! Facts,shmacts.

The left pretends their behavior is motivated from" love" or "peace" or "patriotism"; but these are only words they use to rationalize their actions to themselves, which often exemplify exactly the opposite. Their self-deception and denial is simply stunning in its sweeping grandiosity and self-righteousness betrayal of the good.

When psychological denial distorts or obscures reality, people are far more likely to make the wrong choices and ignore the serious problems; they are more likely to avoid the difficult decisions then blame others when things don't come out perfectly.

Even in politics--perhaps especially in politics, reality and truth matter.

WITHDRAW NOW ?

THE MYTHS THAT CONTINUE TO FUEL THE DEMOCRATS' DENIAL

I made the mistake of watching some of the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on Capitol Hill yesterday, with the subsequent questioning by many posturing senators who seemed indifferent to anything the General or the Ambassador might have to say since they were already committed to their own agenda.

It was, for the most part, a rather pathetic performance.

I was particularly unimpressed with Presidential candidate/ Senator Obama's questioning which while not confrontative like some of his Democratic colleagues, was significantly underwhelming in its content and direction. The usually slick Obama appeared to be completely out of his depth when not appealing to those abstract concepts of 'hope' and 'change'. Also, he looked nervous and sometimes tongue-tied as he sought to phrase each question in the most politically correct manner. In short, he had absolutely nothing of substance or originality to contribute to the discussion.

All in all, the entire production (except for the information imparted by the General and Ambassador) amounted to a a waste of my time. It was particularly annoying to watch and listen to the antics of the lunatic Code Pink clowns, who have come to symbolize the lack of seriousness with which the left takes national security issues.

Clearly, I have to stop doing things like this for the sake of my own mental health.

Nevertheless, it all reminded me of an article I read a few months ago from Strategy Page where a list of The 10 Myths of the Iraq War has been compiled. They are discussed in detail at the link, but are:

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal.
3-Sanctions were working.
4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran.
5-The Invasion Was a Failure.
6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda.
7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War.
8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam.
9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe.
10- The War in Iraq is Lost.

Until the Iraqi government decided to finally deal with the issue of Moqtada Al Sadr and his militia (and indirectly with the reality of Iranian interference), the Iraq story had basically dropped off the radar of both the MSM and the Democrats.

Because the Surge was working, both realized Iraq had become an issue that could not possibly benefit them and their strategic goal of reclaiming the White House. Hence, the silence was rather deafening as they retreated from their original talking points about the war being lost and were mostly confined to trying to tie the cost of the war into their economic doom and gloom package.

Then along comes Basra and Sadr, and these loyal American 'patriots' nearly wet their pants at the possibility that they could use this violent confrontation to justify their desire to surrender and confirm that the whole enterprise is a HOPELESS QUAGMIRE. For a party that is betting everything on HOPE and CHANGE, their hopelessness about the possibility of defeating Al Qaeda and their lack of interest in the CHANGE in the strategic map of the Middle East is somewhat amazing.

The Democrats and the left live (and die) by polls. Popularity means everything to them. Other people's opinions are the foundation of all their "principled" stands on issues, and you can always count on them to be a weathervane showing which direction the winds of ego gratification blow.

It's really too bad for them that external reality is not decided by a poll; nor is it decided by feelings, or pandering to feelings. Their self-induced blindness and utter refusal to acknowledge the realities of Islamic fanaticism and the war on terror in general; as well as the realities of the specific Iraqi theater of that war is truly astonishing.

Wretchard, in a post titled "People Listening Without Hearing" notes:

Corn seems to think that the proper role of the Democratic Congressmen was to discredit or attack the Surge. I would have thought their first duty was to listen to Petraeus and think about America's strategic choices in the region. But then it's 2008 and we all know what that year signifies.

Yes, we all know what that year signifies. And you don't have to be a psychiatrist to understand the fundamental priority that motivates a narcissist.

The narcissistically driven denial of reality endures that they will never willingly or consciously reassess their socialist/leftist/PC ideology, or even question it.

Such reflection is far too threatening.

Anna Freud once wrote that the ego of a child in denial "refuses to become aware of some disagreeable reality.... It turns its back on it, and in imagination reverses the unwelcome facts."

The essence of psychologica denial is a refusal to look at, or acknowledge, reality.

Fortunately, reality exists outside of one's head and is objective and verifiable. It is not altered by whim, desire, lies or myth. This is not to say that people might not believe ideas that do not conform to reality--in fact, they do so all the time. Just like Anna's description of the child's ego, the ego of an otherwise normal adult may also resort to childish, immature and primitive mechanisms when it feels threatened.

You would think it would be a simple matter to be "in touch" with reality. But it isn't. It requires a great deal of cognitive effort--i.e., thinking--and often that effort must assert itself over powerful emotions that draw the person away from the real world to a place more comfortable and unchallenging to their inner reality.

So, how does a rational person determine what is true and what is delusion? How do you decide if something is a myth or is real?

In the case of the Strategy Page list above, people of the left will assert that it is those of us who don't subscribe to those assertions who are in living in the land of psychological denial. As I already mentioned (and it can't be repeated too often these days) reality objectively exists outside of any one person's or group's beliefs.

Psychological denial and the avoidance of an unpleasant reality are certainly not confined to one side of the political spectrum or the other. But what I find endlessly fascinating is how the political left has created and fully integrated specific ideological tools that facilitate ongoing psychological denial.

It reminds me of all the paranoid patients I have observed over the years, who effortlessly are able to dismiss or explain away those facts that don't fit in with their carefully constructed conspiracy theories. If you get too assertive in pointing out those uncomfortable facts, you find yourself in no time fully integrated into the theory. For the paranoid, the case is closed and the argument is finished.

The political left has been utilizing the same psychological strategies inherent in the paranoid style since the end of the cold war and the 20th century. The rise of politically correct speech and the dogma of multiculturalism; the insistence on cultural diversity while enforcing a profound homogeneity of ideas and lack of intellectual diversity in academia; as well as the distortions and rationalizations that are currently the hallmark of intellectual debate within our institutions of higher learning and politics-- have all combined to dissuade those on the political left from pursuing a course of intellectual honesty and/or emotional insight.

This is what makes it so frustrating to debate or argue with today's typical postmodern leftist. Some are willing to engage in discussion, but you can always count on their complete dismissal of any fact that does not conform to their ideological perspective. No matter how many times you debunk their position (e.g., no matter how many times evidence of Saddam's WMD's are found and documented; that evidence has been either ignored or poo-pooed using a variety of rationalizations--and the goalposts are then changed to ensure the safety of the denial).

When it suits their purposes (i.e., when they are losing the argument), they will resort to the claim that reality and truth are merely subjective constructs anyway, and that any evidence you present is only someone's "opinion" and that their opinions are as good as anyone else's.

Such a position should logically disqualify their position to begin with, but of course, it doesn't.

Generally they use this as their argument of last resort--when they cannot bring any facts or logic to support their position. After a brief escape into the relativism noted above, they will then usually proceed directly to the usual ad hominem attacks. Q.E.D.

The essential problem of the left in acknowledging the truth about Saddam's WMD's or any of the other myths they still propagate about the Iraq war, is that these myths have become inextricably entwined and inseparable from their most sacred ideological beliefs. These are the myths that are the cornerstone of their faith in the evil of George Bush, Republicans and, of course, America itself.

To acknowledge even the slightest possibility that these keystones of their religious political faith are warped would threaten their entire ideology--and thus, their image of themselves. They need to see themselves as caring and compassionate; always standing for peace and brotherhood--and oh, and by the way, you were aware that they are a reality-based community, weren't you? They need to make sure you understand that at the outset.

And how could you possibly forget for a moment that they are loving, caring, compassionate and committed to truth, social justice and reality? They remind you regularly that's what they heroically stand for and how they think of themselves.

Why just yesterday, Jay Rockefeller dissed the entire Air Force for "not caring" about people because they do the job they do--i.e., protecting us in time of war. Rockefeller made it a rather personal attack on John McCain (and he did apologize later for "misspeaking"), but the clear implication was that he, Jay Rockefeller (and the candidate he endorses obviously) does care about people and wouldn't be caught dead fighting in a war because, you know, people get killed!

People like Rockefeller obsessively and repeatedly make sure you understand how loving and good they are, in contrast to the members of the political right who are always described as "hate-filled" (the right "hate" blacks; "hate" hispanics, "hate" women, "hate" gays, "hate" the poor etc. etc.). Academics of the left are desperate to "prove" that neocons, Republicans and conservatives are all 'warmongerers; and give the compassionate left (whose legacy includes millions dead in regimes like the Soviet Union) a scientific seal of approval (see here, for a discussion about one example of this tendency).

By itself, this rather compulsive behavior on their part should give any thinking person pause, because it is not typically the behavior of people who are entirely comfortable with who they are. Rather, from a psychological perspective, their behavior and the almost desperate need they exhibit to prove both you and to themselves that they ARE more caring, more sensitive, and more reality-based, suggests that they are trying to hide quite the opposite reality from themselves.

As I have written before, at the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. And this is where unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.

Thus, any person genuinely trying to determine which side of an argument conforms to reality and truth, needs to assess the personal, i.e., the psychological, stakes or conflicts of interest (as those stakes are sometimes referred to) for both sides of the argument.

Of course, both sides in this argument have a conflicts of interest because this is politics and both sides want to win. So, it is entirely possible that both sides are deluding themselves and in denial.

In that case, a rational observer would either wash his hands of both sides; or, accept the reality that one side or the other is going to be in power and go with the side that is at least closest to reality.

When it comes to deciding between Democrats and Republicans; the political left or the neocons; I'm going to have to go with the only partially deluded Republicans and the neocons all the way.

They at least have not completely abandoned the real world for the bubble of self-delusion. They have not regularly retreated into moral relativism and the nihilism of postmodern rhetoric to justify their denial and delusion. They have not embraced national defeat and humiliation as a path to power and control over others. They do not constantly whine, scream, and behave like immature children when they don't get their way (at least not a a matter of course). They do not say one thing and then do another, at least not with the frequency and enthusiasm of the Democrats and the left. They at least put forth new ideas and plans to deal with the situation in Iraq and in the real world in general; the Democrats and the left apparently aren't capable of generating an idea or plan and simply want to retreat and capitulate. The Republicans and neocons have a demonstrated capacity to adapt to reality, and then to change tactics to produce a desired outcome (consider the "surge" in Iraq). The Democrats and the left use the same tired old tactics over and over and can't even acknowledge that things in Iraq have improved dramatically.

Nor will they face the impending reality of a nuclear Iran.

For more than 7 years now, America has had to listen to the Democrats' and the left's constant carping about the inadequacies of America; the evils of American power; the ; we have had to withstand their contempt for America's fundamental values; and our military had to bear the brunt of their incoherent rage and careless enabling of the enemy we fight (talk about "not caring" about people--does Code Pink or the other zombies of the left take any responsibility for enabling and encouraging Al Qaeda and Iran to continue to kill Americans whenever they can?).

We have listened to the endless repetition of their mantras and slogans--and their myths; the unrivaled self-righteousness of their superior intellects; and seen firsthand the intensity of the hatred that motivates them.

In all that time there have been very very few able to summon up an iota of insight; or a moment of self-reflection about the consequences of their own rhetoric or behavior.

Don't dare question their patriotism, they scream. But look at their behavior and its consequences.

One of the most serious psychological challenges that any human being must face is to face reality, particularly when the consequences of confronting truth are personally unpleasant and very painful. That is exactly what psychological denial seeks to avoid doing.

For the Democrats and their increasingly histrionic leftist base, denial--not America-- has been their country of residence since September 11, 2001. Generally, it has been a safe and happy place for them to be; because as long as they can hate and vilify George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and all those evil Republicans and Lieberman Democrats out there; and as long as they can pretend that the objects of their hate are the real cause of any problem; then they don't have to deal with the external reality of Islamofascist terror, or face the truth about their own unacknowledged and pathological internal reality. They can continue to cling to the holy, neo fascist socialist faith, newly risen from the ashes of the 20th century; and delude themselves into thinking that they are wonderful, caring, loving and reality-based people.

Let's face it, the myths that fuel the left's denial are designed to make sure that they--not America--come out the winners; and that they never have to say they are sorry for enabling the enemies of America and for helping them to kill their fellow Americans.

A MILLION MOONBAT MELTDOWN ?

If this is true, the sound you will soon be hearing is from the simultaneous explosion of a million moonbat brains:

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday.

Furthermore, according to a report leaked to the TV channel, Syria has arrested 10 intelligence officials following the assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh.

Stay tuned...and listen for the sound of exploding and melting brains.

UPDATE: Last night after The Sanity Squad podcast, the Freudian Final Four were discussing the above along with a number of other recent interesting events that have appeared in the news. ShrinkWrapped has put it all together in an excellent post that connects the dots and suggests that there is much more going on than appears on the surface.

If his analysis is correct, then some big things are about to happen in the Middle East that may explain why GW Bush has been smiling a lot lately; and why Condi Rice would make an incredible Vice President....

SANITY SQUAD - Economic Hallucinosis !

Listen to The Sanity Squad podcast from last night! Siggy, Shrinkwrapped, Neo and discuss the difference between perception and reality, economic hallucinosis; and touch on recent events in Basra that the media and left have declared a "defeat" (for them, actually).

Click on the button below to listen:



...and then watch Drew Carey talk about "Living Large" which touches on most of the themes we discussed on the show (hat tip: yonason) :

SANITY SQUAD LIVE TONIGHT!

Please join us for another Sanity Squad podcast this evening at 8:00 pm! Siggy, Shrinkwrapped, Neo and I will be discussing perception and reality about the US economy; as well as recent events in Basra.

Click on the button below to listen live:



The call in number is is (646) 716-9116. Showtime is a 8 PM tonight.

"HOPE", "CHANGE", LEFTIST DISTORTION, AND MASS HYSTERIA

This comment from Glenn Reynolds says it all, doesn't it, about those who are hyping doom and gloom in the economy?

"PINK SLIP NATION:"

Actually, though, the unemployment rate in November 1996, when Clinton rode a soaring economy to victory, was 5.4%. That's right--three tenths of a percent higher than the "grim picture" of a "pink slip nation" painted by this month's unemployment report.

That was different, because back then a man from Hope promised Change.

The Democrats and the left are trying to sweep all of America up into their psychotic delusions; to make everyone believe that everything under Bush is far worse than anything that has ever come before.

They cannot appeal to fact, therefore they must appeal to emotion.

This is how a group psychosis (i.e., mass hysteria) is politically created and sustained--by a deliberate distortion of truth for the purpose of achieving political power. The flames of emotionalism and exaggerated outrage must be constantly fanned; and always, the truth must be hidden.

America, once the shining light of reason and enlightenment for the whole world, is slowly descending into the same psychopathology that has dragged down the culture of the Middle East; but it is not the policies of the Bush Administration that have resulted in such an outcome--it is the logical and inevitable consequence of the nihilism and the totalitarian dreams of the political left.

What matters most to the minions of the political left is not truth, or reality--or even "peace" and "brotherhood" and "justice"; what matteris is how effective is the language used to manipulate others.

Lies, distortions, ad hominem attacks; attempts to silence opposing views--all are strategies that are perfectly satisfactory if they achieve the desired effect. Ideas and reason must make way for reification of feelings; and freedom is replaced by the thought control of the compassionately totalitarian concept of political correctness.

They must have perfection--perfect thoughts, perfect motives, perfect human interactions, perfect peace, perfect war. The market must ALWAYS go up; if it goes down it must be a plot of the evil capitalists; if anything goes wrong in a war it must be because of the incompetence of a Republican Commander-in-Chief; if the economy has its ups and downs, it will be because of inadequate government controls; if humans behave like humans--well, they too must be perfected by the perfect ideology. As I noted the other day, when you are building a perfect utopia, it's necessary to eliminate the undesirables--but it is for the good of all, of course.

So, bring on the economic hysteria! Without it, the left has no hope of achieving power and imposing their utopian fantasies.

Related: Predatory politicians or predatory lenders?

GO, HILLARY, GO

Cartoons by Larry Wright

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

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. Finally! The anwer(s) to one of the most important philosophical questions ever asked.

2. Zawahiri (he's #2) announces #1's death (if you listen closely)...Who you gonna believe--#2 or #3?

3. The bad guys come out to die. A triumphant surrender? Remind us again who's losing? Media scorekeeping leaves something to be desired. Don't mess with the Special Forces.

4. Magical thinking, perhaps? Now, what part of Geert Wilder's movie 'Fitna' is Islamophobic? And are all these people Islamophobic? Or do they just prefer iSlam's competitor?

5. Year of the Fonzie. Another business is feeling the pinch!

6. Pinched to death! What? Me worry?

7. Even Kim Jong Il would blanch. Another leftist myth bites the dust. Alternative locations for Gitmo.

8. Today your weed, tomorrow the world! Or maybe just the cement factory. Next it will be the toilet paper manufacturers.... Does science hold the answer? But it's not his fault! It's in the genes.

9. Just in case you think you've heard every sort of excuse for speeding... Just in case you've heard every sort of excuse for 'misspeaking'.

10. Don't mess with her narrative (She's #3, after all!).

11. Flashback. Words matter. Exxxxcelent.

12. Bummer! Another screw-up! Maybe they need some help on how to blog?

13. Absolut arrogance? Absolute tirade. Absolute idiocy.

14. Just blowing smoke. An apparent willingness to change his tune on the fly like a shapeshifter and he never got out of the gutter.

15. Worse and worser...dumb and dumber. A rejuvinated visage but the same old metrosexual brain.

16. Filing is taxing..something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on!

17. If you want to avoid turbulence, you'll have to stay home. Case in point.

18. Losing the Wiki wars...

19. Here's NOT lookin' at you, kid.

20. Super Pii Pii brothers...

21. A nice pizza change! Raising the bar by lowering the seat ?

22. Men are from California and women are from New Jersey! Men stand up straight and women lean... They even look in the mirror in opposite ways!

23. Can you dance The Bear?

***************************************
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?

WHAT DOES A LITTLE GENOCIDE MATTER WHEN YOU'RE OUT TO BUILD A UTOPIA ?

Jonah Goldberg writes about this controversy:

The Russians defend themselves by arguing that they were merely trying to slaughter an economic class of people, not an ethnicity. I understand why, as a technical matter, this might be a defense against the charge of "genocide" which, after all, is about killing a type of people. From the article:

Historians agree that the 1932-33 famine was engineered by Soviet authorities under dictator Josef Stalin to force peasants to give up their private plots of land and join collective farms.

Ukraine, with its rich farmlands, suffered the most. Authorities confiscated grain from village after village and prohibited residents from leaving, effectively condemning them to starvation.

Some are convinced the famine targeted Ukrainians as an ethnic group. Others argue authorities set out to eradicate private landowners as a social class and say the Soviet Union sought to pay for its rapid industrialization with grain exports at the expense of starving millions of its own people.

"There is no historical proof that the famine was organized along ethnic lines. Its victims were million of citizens of the Soviet Union, representing different peoples and nationalities living largely in agricultural areas of the country," the Russian State Duma resolution said.

Now, part of what fascinates me is why anyone would think murdering people because of their economic status is somehow any less evil than murdering people because of their ethnicity. I know what many of the whys are, and I think they reveal something profound about how different people see the world. In America and the West generally, vast numbers of leftist intellectuals forgave Stalin, Mao and others for murdering people who stood in the way of Progress — and historians continue to do so today. Indeed, "modernization" was one of the great excuses and rationalizations for murder, theft and, yes, genocide in the 20th century and, I fear, people will be going back to this intellectual well for a good long time.

One last point: If you are a Marxist you generally consider race, ethnicity and nationality to be mere epiphenomena, absurd and archaic categories of the Old Order, right? And, you believe that class is an enduring category of humanity, more "real" than mere ethnicity, right? So by your own definitions, isn't slaughtering a whole class of people a form of genocide or attempted genocide?

To fathom the "logic" of the marxists/socialist/communists/leftists, we will have to revisit the heirarchy of the socialist victimhood chain:

...we have established that the culture (except for Western culture, which is uniquely evil and oppressive) is very high up on the food chain, and can eat and kill with impunity. Is there any group that trumps the culture?

Again, there are hints of how socialist logic deals with this. The needs of the nation will trump a protected/victim culture for the same reason that being an independent woman, black or gay person loses their victim status: they act independently of the socialist gestalt (i.e., they refuse to stay in their pre-determined place in the food chain and dare to be different).

Thus, Saddam the socialist Ba'athist could rightly gas the Kurds and no one payed much attention to it. Even genocide is acceptable to the socialist logician, who must always take into account the following factors: 1) which group is larger (oppressed nations or religions > cultures > sub-cultures > small groups, e.g., "Democrats", > individuals, e.g., blacks, women, and gays; 2) When there is a conflict among groups at the same level of the chain, then precedence is given to the "purer" victim--i.e., those who know their place in the chain, are willing to remain victims for all eternity, and take no actions to stop being victims.

Another example is the Palestinians' as a group (considered an oppressed nation for reasons that elude me) have such a high victimization quotient, they can freely and "justly" oppress or kill any members of their own society that are not considered "good" Palestinians, as well as anyone outside their society with impunity (i.e., Israelis). Because the Israelis have such a low quotient, they are not even permitted to kill in self-defense. The same dynamic occurs when Muslim extremists (the extremely oppressed variety of Muslim) kill other Muslims (just ordinary oppressed Muslims) ; or when they kill Christians; or when they kill just about anyone in their usual indiscriminant manner. But Americans who take extraordinary precautions in war as in peace not to kill innocent people are damned to hell when they attack even the extremist Muslims who repeatedly try to kill them and state their intent at regular intervals.

Islamic fanatics can behead and mutilate non-combatant men and women at will. Americans are prohibited from humiliating Islamic fanatics or even frightening the poor dears (it is called "torture") ; Moderate Islamics can prohibit Westerners living in Islamic societies from owning a Bible; and punish them severely if they do; but Americans are not permitted to show any disrespect, let alone spit on a Koran even in America.

Clearly, if you are NOT one of the designated victimized or oppressed cultures, nations, or groups, then you and your non-victim-designated members are at the bottom of the socialist food chain and anything bad that is done to you by those above you in the food chain must be your own damn fault. This includes those who are Western, American/Israeli, Caucasian, Republican, conservatives, Rich, Capitalist, Christian, male, heterosexual and so on down the chain.

Thus, you can clearly see the intellectual origins of the many slogans that epitomize modern-day socialists:

IMPERIALIST AMERICA IS HUMANITIES NUMBER ONE ENEMY

DEATH THE THE WORLD'S NUMBER 1 TERRORIST: BUSH & HIS SHEEP

KILL TERRORISTS: BOMB BUSH IN HIS F****ING HOUSE

WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS

IMPEACH THE GRINGOS

CONDI: I'M FIGHTING FOR WHITEY

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

ZIONIST PIGS

I LOVE NY EVEN MORE WITHOUT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

NAZI KIKES OUT OF LEBANON

FUCK MIDDLE AMERICA

SMASH THE JEWISH STATE

And so on, ad infinitum, in the wonderfully peaceful and loving socialist manner we came to know so well in the last century.

Clearly, when all of humanity is at stake; when the socialist utopia is at-hand; lines must be drawn and the masses must be kept in their appropriate places in order to achieve social justice, peace, and universal brotherhood.

What does a little genocide matter when you're out to build a utopia?

BARONESS VON MUNCHAUSEN vs MARTIN LUTHER OBAMA

The Democratic race has clearly devolved into a race between the Baroness von Munchausen and Martin Luther Obama. Charles Krauthammer suggests:

The revulsion at the Clintons' lack of scruples remained latent as long as the focus was on her relatively unknown opponent, a blank slate being filled in with Tony Rezko's shady dealings and Jeremiah Wright's racist rants. Tuzla not only provided a distraction from Obama's problem with the raving reverend, it created the perfect setting for the press to pronounce the Wright affair closed....

It is not just that Obama surrogate Rep. George Miller denounced the Clinton campaign for bringing up Wright when talking to superdelegates as trying to "work the low road." You expect that from a campaign. Or that Andrew Sullivan called Hillary's commenting on Wright "a new low." You expect that from Andrew Sullivan.

But from the mainstream media? As National Review's Byron York has pointed out, when Clinton supporter Lanny Davis said on CNN that it is "legitimate" for her to have remarked "that she personally would not put up with somebody who says that 9/11 are chickens who come home to roost" or the kind of "generic comments (Wright) made about white America," Anderson Cooper, the show's host and alleged moderator, interjected that since "we all know what the (Wright) comments were," he found it "amazing" and "funny" that Davis should "feel the need to repeat them over and over again."

Davis protested, "It's appropriate." Time magazine's Joe Klein promptly smacked Davis down with "Lanny, Lanny, you're spreading the -- you're spreading the poison right now," and then suggested that an "honorable person" would "stay away from this stuff."

Amazing. We've gone beyond moral equivalence to moral inversion. It is now dishonorable to even make note of Wright's bigotry and ask how any man -- let alone a man on the threshold of the presidency -- could associate himself for 20 years with the purveyor of such hate.

The media, Krauthammer astutely notes, has now gone back to protecting the saintly myth of Barack Obama. One example is this piece today from the LA Times, in which MLK is characterized as both the optimistic Obama and the bigoted Rev. Wright; and implies that it is wrong wrong wrong to take Jeremiah Wright's-- "uttered prophetic truths" and caricature them out of "their religious and racial context."

Oh dear. Isn't that just what all those postmodern historians have against the evil slave-holding Founding Fathers? Aren't these "religious and racial contexts" precisely what are used repeatedly to condemn them and proclaim them 'irrelevant'?

I find myself agreeing with Juan Williams :

Mr. Obama's major speech on race last month was forced from him only after a political crisis erupted: It became widely known that he'd sat for 20 years in the pews of a church where Rev. Jeremiah Wright lashed out at white people. The minister cursed America as worthy of damnation, made lewd suggestions about the nature of President Clinton's relationship with black voters, and embraced the paranoid idea that the white government was spreading AIDS among black people.

Here is where the racial tension at the heart of Mr. Obama's campaign flared into view. He either shared these beliefs or, lacking good judgment, decided it politically expedient for an ambitious young black politician trying to prove his solidarity with all things black, to be associated with these rants. His judgment and leadership on the critical issue of race is in question.

While speaking to black people, King never condescended to offer Rev. Wright-style diatribes or conspiracy theories. He did not paint black people as victims. To the contrary, he spoke about black people as American patriots who believed in the democratic ideals of the country, in nonviolence and the Judeo-Christian ethic, even as they overcame slavery, discrimination and disadvantage. King challenged white America to do the same, to live up to their ideals and create racial unity. He challenged white Christians, asking them how they could treat their fellow black Christians as anything but brothers in Christ.

You have to wonder if Juan Williams will be subjected to the same treatment as Randi Rhodes, who perhaps for the first time in her career has spoken truth to power (i.e., the 'power' or tyranny wielded by the leftist PC police) and now must pay the consequences for daring to be so bold and honest. (She could say such things and far worse about President Bush, and never fear that she would be suspended. In fact, most of her fans would herald such ravings as some sort of courageous confrontation with evil).

Consider Virginia Postrel's Obama analysis:

Obama’s glamour also accounts for some of his campaign’s other stumbles. Plenty of candidates attract supporters who disagree with them on some issues. Obama is unusual, however. He attracts supporters who not only disagree with his stated positions but assume he does too. They project their own views onto him and figure he is just saying what other, less discerning voters want to hear. So when Obama’s chief economic adviser supposedly told a Canadian official that, contrary to campaign rhetoric, the candidate didn’t want to revise NAFTA, reporters found the story credible. After all, nobody that thoughtful and sophisticated could really oppose free trade.

So, there we have it. The Dems are down to an overt pathological liar or (yet another) well-spoken, metrosexual empty husk, upon whom the frayed ideals of aging hippies can be projected.

Sadly, it is a very hard choice since both accurately represent today's morally and intellectually bankrupt Democratic Party.

THE REALITY SANDWICH

Mark Krikorian at The Corner notes:

This just in:

A series of new television and radio commercials, billboards and bus shelter signs will soon go up around San Francisco advertising the fact that the city by the bay is also a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.

The only thing like that I can recall was an abortive effort to put up a billboard inviting illegal aliens in New Jersey to move to Cambridge, Mass., after that city renewed its status as a sanctuary for illegal aliens.

The ad campaign goes along with San Francisco's plan to start issuing municipal ID cards to illegal aliens this summer. The sponsor of that measure used an image I don't recall seeing before:

"We're taking a big bite of the reality sandwich in admitting that there are people who live here who may or may not have citizen status," said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who helped spearhead the ad campaign and who represents the city's heavily Latino Mission District

Make mine a Reuben with extra sauerkraut.

OK, I get it! Tough-minded San Franciscan moonbats are not only facing reality head on, but are taking a great big bite out of it just to show that they have no fear.

And what is there to fear, after all? Consequences? They don't fear no stinkin' consequences.

Nevermind that in one swell foop they have managed to:

reward illegal aliens for breaking American laws

encourage more illegal aliens to break American laws in the future

make sure that law-abiding aliens understand there is absolutely no advantage to being law-abiding

created a major incentive for more illegal aliens to come to their city

spend law-abiding taxpayers' money on an ad campaign to announce their wonderfulness

spend law-abiding taxpayers' money to support law-breaking illegal aliens to live in their city

Just consider the items in the list above the 'pickles, tomatoes and onions' they left off their 'reality' sandwich.

ABOVE THE LAW

Most relevant(and most astonishingly accurate) quote of the day from David Fredosso:

Ben Bernanke and Christopher Cox are both sitting on the panel currently testifying about the Bear Stearns bailout. I've been listening to these hearings all morning, and I'm completely convinced that no one with even a basic layman's understanding of finance has ever been elected to the United States Senate.

Cartoons by Eric Allie

A PSYCHOTIC DEPRESSION WITH ECONOMIC HALLUCINOSIS

IBD says that journalists are suffering from depression:

Journalism: It's been said the press notice the homeless problem only when a Republican's in office. The same could be said for food stamps, which the media now are using as an economic indicator.

Scary headline in Monday's Times: "As Jobs Vanish And Prices Rise, Food Stamp Use Nears Record." Scarier headline in Britain's Independent: "USA 2008: The Great Depression."

Why didn't the Times editors just say: "Economy In Shambles — It's All Bush's Fault"? Or the Independent condemn the president for his war on the poor?

The stories, as well as similar coverage in other publications and on the newswire, were more subtle than that. But make no mistake — the message is that the Bush-Republican economy is a calamity of epic proportions.

As the election nears, the mainstream media, unable this time to make an issue out of Iraq, are focusing on the economy on behalf of the Democrats. And they're more than a bit overwrought. To see the headlines and to read or listen uncritically to the stories, one would think the 1930s were golden years by comparison.

As usual, there's more to the story.

Take the headline "Food Stamp Use Nears Record," which is only partially accurate. True, the 28 million Americans who will use food stamps in 2008 is the highest number ever. But that raw number is a poor measure; it doesn't provide context.

What's relevant is the percentage of the population that's on food stamps. And the worst years there are 1993, 1994 and 1995.

Yes, it was during the second Camelot presidency that the largest portions of the population were using food stamps: 10.4% in 1993 and 1994, and 10% in 1995.

Indeed. I saw the same thing happen here in Michigan when John Engler (a Republican) was governor. Not a day went by where he wasn't excoriated in the press because of policies that "hurt the poor" etc. blah blah blah. He made front page news daily because he supported proposals that would cut entitlements and tried to balance the budget. Since Jennifer Granholm (guess which party?) has been in charge, the state economy has descended into the toilet and major cuts have been imposed, but these cuts were always "necessary" and, her saintly name is rarely mentioned in connection to them, except with a positive spin.

Americans are hearing voices in their heads. And like auditory hallucinations experienced by psychiatric patients, these voices whisper continual doom and gloom. They tell the American consumer that prices are too high. That the economy is tanking; that poverty is on the rise; and that everything is bad bad bad.

These voices have been persistent and continuous ever since the evil Republican came to dwell in the White House. They are unrelenting--no matter what the actual facts are. Recently, they have been extremely frightening, predicting a 30's style depression with (even for them) unusual enthusiasm and glee.

And, like the command hallucinations that torment many of my patients, they are complete and total distortions.

It is very rare for such voices to say anything at all positive. They have a specific goal--and that goal is the distortion of reality.

So why do patients believe them? Especially the one's that are bizarre and so obviously out of touch with any known reality? You know, the ones that say aliens have implanted electrodes in your brain and are monitoring your thoughts and things like that.

It is a triumph of false perceptions over reality. It is testimony to how profoundly and fundamentally people trust their perceptual faculties and let their peceptions rule, even when those perception come in conflict with common sense, truth, or reality.

We, the American people have come to have a similar trust in the voices of the MSM. Over the years, they have almost become an additional perceptual faculty that we rely on--simply because life has become too complicated and overwhelming, that the use of our ordinary senses is insufficient in the modern world.

In other words, we rely on the media in the same way we rely on our own senses to provide us with the information necessary to make decisions and judgements in the real world.

The MSM has become those evil voices inside our head, that come and go depending on the political whims of the moment. As the IBD op-ed points out, because the Iraq war is mostly headed in a positive direction (they haven't been able to spin Sadr's ignomonius defeat quite into the victory they would like) they sense that by focusing on the subprime mortgage issue and the buyout of Bear Stearns, they can manipulate every American's worse fears.

No one is saying that these issues are good; or that we are going through some tough times as a whole, but the media is distorting their significance and hyping the 'fixes' to such an extent that you would believe that--if it weren't for the Democrats looking out for the 'little guy' we would all be headed to the poor house at best and hopeless suicidal depression at worse.

As a personal example, my own house which resides in the tanked economic state of Michigan has basically reverted to the value it had 9 years ago when we bought it--that is, all the equity in it has been lost. I do not like this state of affairs, because it means I can't depend on that equity anymore as a cushion until and unless housing prices start to come back up. But though I don't like it, it doesn't mean that it is the end of the world. Even if for some reason I could not afford to continue to pay my mortgage, then I hope I am realistic enough to appreciate that I would have to change my circumstances and find a cheaper place to live. I would not expect that under all cirucumstance that the government would bail me out and force others to pay my mortgage for me (and that is what all these programs would do, isn't it?). I willingly took the financial gains that came with the housing boom; now that it is not booming and coming down to a different equilibrium, I need to take the financial losses.

I thought that was called being a grownup. But, if you listen to the MSM, I am completely wrong! I was mislead by corporate greed. I am the victim of evil capitalists and they are out to profit from my misery (of course, they would have profited much more if I could pay the mortgage).

But that is the reality of the market, isn't it? It goes up and it goes down. If I tried to sell my house in this market, the buyers out there would be jubilant and get it at a real bargain (just as I did all those years ago because the people moving out of it were divorcing and were desperate to sell it--at that time, the real estate market was booming and they had to sell at less than they would like to move it).

Some time back during a similar time of economic hallucinosis, The Anchoress pointed out:

Economists had forecast GDP would advance at a 3.6% rate in the July-to-September quarter. The economy has now expanded faster than 3% for 10 straight quarters.

So when was the last time the economy expanded faster than 3% for 10 straight quarters?

It didn’t happen during the 1990s (the longest streak was eight).

It last happened during the 13 quarters from 1Q 1983 through 1Q 1986. Not coincidentally, a president who believed in lowering taxes to stimulate economic growth was in charge the last time it happened.

So despite being at war, despite devastating storms, and despite legislative and regulatory drags on the economy like Sarbanes-Oxley, this has been most consistently growing economy in almost 20 years.

I would wager that the instant the Democrats take over the White House (glory hallelujah to that wonderful day, the voices would sing), the voices of doom will cease to trouble us and we will be cured of our "malaise".

Not because anything will have changed, but because the voices will have achieved their purpose.

During the last 7 years we have seen unemployment fall. GDP continue to rise, sometimes at the fastest growth years. Yet the New York Times and other MSM hallucinations always surveys the economic landscape and declare, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling."

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 are creating poverty and economic decline. They immediately seize on any bad economic news to declare impending doom.

Meanwhile, any attempts to decrease the annual rate of growth in Federal entitlements (e.g. from a 6.3% increase to a 6.2% increase--a whopping cut of 0.1%) caused leads to incredible hysteria and wailing about how the poor and innocent will suffer.

And, any attempt to decrease the federal deficit by cutting spending in a protected entitlement or a "feel-good" program that in reality does nothing of substance for the poor, the relatively mild accusations of simply " hating" the poor would undoubtedly morph into accusations of "genocide" --headlines like: BUSH UNLEASHES 'GENOCIDE' ON THE POOR! Witness the current incredulity that Republican John McCain doesn't want to interfere too much with the workings of the market, particularly to reward bad behavior or poor choices in either business or individual spending. Such a common sense position is considered the equivalent of INSENSITIVITY to the needs of the poor and helpless who are ruthlessly exploited by the evil capitalistic system.

But economic reality is that markets go down and up and that at any given time some people will benefit financially and some will not. So, what is behind the fact that people just don't feel that the economy is doing well despite their own personal circumstances?

I proposed sometime back a variant of Seligman's theory of "Learned Helplessness".

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. Unfortunately, most Republicans in Congress equally fear the hallucinations that bombard the American mind and are unwilling to let the market take its course because someone, somewhere would be hurt and that's just not good politics.

But at least if the Democrats were in power, 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--even deliberately caused by the evil Republicans. Or that the market could only go up up up forever!

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

Yes, the world is definitely insane AND there definitely is an agenda that is behind those relentlessly negative voices...


UPDATE: SC&A extend the discussion of dysfunctional journalists:

The media are much like the politicians they cover and report on. That politicians routinely exaggerate their experiences, positions, achievements and influence points to their own discomfort with who they really are. By inflating their experiences and achievements politicians hope to be seen by others (and in the mirror) as someone bigger, more impressive and more important than the people they really are. That kind of self destructive behavior is routinely engaged in by people who do not like themselves.

AUGURIES OF INSANITY- [Abbreviated]

(With apologies to William Blake)

To see the world through an opaque lens,
And truthfulness in deceit,
Insist folly really does make sense,
And victory is defeat.

A woman in a burka cage
Fails our feminists to enrage.

A White House fill'd with Democrats
Will bow and scrape to theocrats.
Ladies in pink--which disguises their hate--
Predict the ruin of our state.

A fatwa for a mild cartoon
Can make the Muslim masses swoon.
Islam-inspired atrocity
Recedes with high velocity
While Western sins (more human error),
Are said to be the height of terror.

How does the world turn inside out,
And all that's real is met with doubt?
When bigots get applause and cheers
When patriots get boos and jeers.

When those who call for 'peace on earth'
Have no idea what peace is worth;
And those who fight for liberty
Must be portrayed in villiany.

The children are all taught to kill
Submit themselves to allah's will ;
And in the West they fight and bicker
Over which one will surrender quicker.

Insanity is now the norm
And truth displaced in just a breath;
We wait and watch the gathering storm,
A skirmish between life and death....

GET RID OF IDENTITY POLITICS AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR 'A CONVERSATION ON RACE'

Victor Davis Hanson in an editorial titled "10 Things A Candidate Might Promise What We Want To Hear" listed a number of important themes, but one in particular caught my eye:

4. Race. No more “conversations on race” but simply an end to identity politics. Americans are worn out with racial tribalism. The post-racial candidate Obama recently posed with Bill Richardson to gain a “Latino” endorsement, on the hope apparently that just as African-Americans are supposedly voting 90% for Obama, Hispanics might do likewise on Richardson’s prompt. But the scene was Orwellian. Both Obama and Richardson are elites of mixed ancestry and they just as well might have argued that they were “white” candidates. When either one claims fides to one side of their heritage, they implicitly reject the other. I can’t believe that a naturalized citizen from Oaxaca would vote for the grandee Obama because the grandee Richardson claimed that as an authentic Latino of similar background and perspective he should. And if he were to do that, then we are simply a tribal nation after all.

Eliminate the politically correct, "identity politics" victimhood sweepstakes, and we will have no need for a "conversation on race"--we will finally have swept away the last vestiges of subversive, unconscious racism (AND sexism)--the kind that is relentlessly advocated and championed by the always uninsightful, self-centered political left and their Democratic party shills.

It's truly fascinating to me how they have managed to promote overtly racist and sexist policies and practices on the national agenda while claiming that they are doing just the opposite. In fact, what we have right now within the Democratic party in the fight to the death between the "black" candidate for President and the "female" candidate for President, is the logical end-game of the PC, multi-culti victimhood dogma: racial divisiveness, seething resentment and overweening entitlement-- taken to the nth power.

Right now there is some rather desperate flailing and maneuvering trying to keep everything together, but I predict that it will not work because there is no ability for any compromise between the various victim groups--only a final battle for supremacy which will leave one or the other disenfranchised.

Not only would there be no need for a 'conversation on race', but the entire foundation of today's Democratic party would quite simply disappear, swallowed up by its own devastating and destructive internal contradictions.

You might well wonder what they would do at that point? I mean, how could the political left stand up for the rights of the oppressed if the oppressed refuse to consider themselves oppressed and can stand up for themselves in the world? Heh.