Thursday, May 31, 2007


This is why I am not a Republican, who as a group are only mildly less anti-capitalistic than the blatantly socialist Democrats.

People on the left acuse me of being in thrall to President Bush, but that is far from the truth. I happen to like the man--still do--but I don't think he's much of a communicator; and I certainly don't think his administration has always made optimal decisions regarding the free market.

Operative word is, of course, free. As in the example above:
Oh, all right. One small comment. First, observe the contempt for liberty. When E. coli conservatives say self-regulation is preferable to government, they're even lying about that. Second, observe the contempt for small business. When a small company wants to - voluntarily! - hold its product to a higher standard, the government blocks it, in part because bigger companies have to be protected from the competition, in part because a theoretical threat to the bottom line (false positives) trumps protection against a deadly disease.


Protecting big companies from competition is not capitalism; nor does it help people get the best products and services. Yet, it is capitalism that will get the blame for the fact that the big guys are too lazy to compete or provide the best to their customers. The only reason they can get away with it in the market is because of government interference in the marketplace, specifically economic leveling.

As noted, if it were left to the free market, then the big guys would have to keep up with the innovative small guys and would lose out to them. But, when they can count on the government to protect their incompetence, laziness and bad business practices--everybody loses except them.

I stated in this post that there is a:
...pervasive intellectual trend in the West to continually bash capitalism, private property, business, and free trade; while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of all of them.

Our academics--even the kindergarden ones-- rail against business and private property. Our government constantly seeks to control them. Our youth are propagandized to death about its evils from pre-school through college....

One very harmful result of this sorry educational situation is that there are few people--even among those who stalwartly defend the free market, who understand and appreciate the essential morality of capitalism. Certainly our children, taught by ideological purists like the ones above who are leftover from the 20th century debacle of socialist/communist tyranny--never even have a chance to rationally consider any ideas not approved by their aggressively collectivist teachers, so intent at quashing those aspects of human nature they don't like....



Perhaps that is why we see so much behavior that lacks any kind of integrity on both sides of the political spectrum. Neither side is as concerned with individual freedom, as much as they are with oppressive egalitarianism, entitlement and playing the appropriate victimhood card (in this case, it is "unfair" for one business to actually be better than another--or, just socialist egalitarianism disguised as some sort of policy to "level the playing field" for the less advantaged/highly privileged).

Conservatism has some essential principles that are summarized here; but the relevant one is this:


The anti-capitalist mentality exhibited by both the Democrats and the Republicans these days is like Mad Cow disease itself-- a spongiform infection of the brain that inevitably leads to cognitive and functional deterioration and eventually to the stagnation and death of society itself.


If you have been looking for a way to cultivate a taste for the incredible insanity that surrounds us --and who hasn't, considering the cornucopia of insanity that is out there?--then you need look no further than The SC&A Institute's Weekly Whackjob Awards.

The Weekly Whackjobs go to the most unbelievable of idiots; the most out-of-touch- with-reality and the most foolish of mortals; and are awarded every week by a disreputable panel of experts to the most outstanding examples of dysfunction, stupidity, utter ridiculousness and bizarre political idiocy.

Dr. Sanity is always pleased when she can help the psychologically naive develop a connoisseur's palate for the insanity so rampant in our day and age.

There is always the chance that after tasting this remarkable collection of craziness that your re-entry into the real world will be fraught with challenges and stress. Once that bridge to the utopia of insanit is crossed it may be difficult to return unchanged-- but the price of pursuing perfection is always high.

So, consider very carefully if you are the sort of person who is capable of withstanding the subtle and sublime seduction of high-calorie craziness;and if so, then cleanse your palate and go enjoy the feast!

Wednesday, May 30, 2007


I find it remarkable how the left in this country is taking on such a nuanced and sympathetic perspective about Hugo Chavez' latest dictatorial power play in Venezuela--in fact, check out the always entertaining DU threads, and Daily Kos to find incredibly spirited and emotional defenses of the fascist thug that is now ruling Venezuela.

In their compassionate hearts, they just know that the only real fascist in this world is George W. Bush. And all the polls tell them that they are in the majority, therefore they must be right!

Let's hope their love for Chavez will withstand the latest Venezuelan polls:
Polls released today show that 80% of the population is against the government's shut-down of RCTV. The number of Venzuelans who think Chavez is trying to set up a dictatorship has gone from 40% to 60% in the last week.
Alas, this realization may have comes a little too late. The president is already ruling by decree, with rubber-stamp legislature and judiciary. The tragedy of Venezuela has an overwhelming momentum now.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes; and who can forget Jane Fonda sucking up to the North Vietnamese; Cindy Sheehan kissing Hugo with girlish glee and so on ad infinitum.

You can always count on them to support and rationalize the behavior of the genocidal maniacs and the trendy socialist dictator du jour. SC&A get it right:
It is notable that whenever the Vietnam debacle is alluded to, as of often the case in attempting to make comparisons to the current conflict, no one ever mentions that it was Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that foisted that war upon the country- Democrats. No one today ever refers to those Presidents as ‘Hitler.’ When you consider that over 57,000 Americans died in that war, we find the lack of outrage curious, though not at all surprising. It is also interesting to recognize that President Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act, is not credited for wanting to keep South Vietnam free and democratic. After all, a free and democratic society is what leftists abhor and fear most. Hugo Chavez tramples on his critics, on free speech and a free press and the leftists are for the most part silent. Chavez can do what they can only dream of doing. As we have noted, Utopia cannot be imposed without tyranny.

We should never forget that it is tyranny, disguised as utopia, that the left yearns for.

I wrote:




At any rate,Chavez has never hidden his totalitarian agena or his true colors. Those who still support his tyranny are simply the color-blind drones of the left.

The tragedy of the political left also has reached an overwhelming momentum; and Venezuela's descent into hell is mirrored by their descent into psychological denial, delusion and displacement. I wonder if they will open their eyes when Chavez starts killing his own people like Saddam and all the other thugs in history have done.... Or, when he moves to take over other radio and TV stations that don't toe the socialist line.

Oh, wait! That didn't take long.

But they'll find a reason to excuse all that, too. He's one of them, and his intentions are pure as the driven snow. Just like this group will always get a free pass, as will all the other terrorists in the world today.


From Reuters today:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday called opposition news channel Globovision an enemy of the state and said he would do what was needed to stop it from inciting violence, only days after he shut another opposition broadcaster.

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans marched in Caracas in a fourth consecutive day of protests over Chavez's closure of the RCTV network - a move which has sparked international criticism that the leftist leader's reforms are undermining democracy.

Well, so what? say the Kos Kiddies. "These private stations, owned by anti-Chavez billionaires and businessmen, have led an unceasing anti-Chavez campaign since the day he was elected."

And we all know that billionaires and businessmen are inherently evil, don't we?


Tuesday, May 29, 2007





I don't know...a walnut is rather too large to describe some brains. Perhaps "the size of a peanut" would be more accurate?

Gagdad Bob at One Cosmos defines the problem exactly, and notes that the attempts at self-medication only excacerbate the problem :

And this is why it is so easy to be a conservative, because you no longer have to contort yourself with so many lies in order to be thoroughly consistent, both internally and externally. The left confuses their contortions with "nuance," but nuance is simply the left left brain's feeble attempt to keep reality at bay, which inevitably seeps in through the walls, ceilings, and floorboards. Or as Randy Newman sang,

Guilty, baby I’m guilty
And I’ll be guilty the rest of my life
How come I never do what I’m supposed to do
How come nothin’ that I try to do ever turns out right?

You know, you know how it is with me baby
You know, I just can’t stand myself
And it takes a whole lot of medicine
For me to pretend that I’m somebody else

This medicine is called leftism, but it has never actually cured anyone, much less a nation of people. Instead it rapidly worsens the disease it is intended to cure, so that greater and greater doses are required until the patient perishes -- if not literally, then in spirit, as we see in western Europe.

"It takes a whole lot of medicine for me to pretend I’m somebody else." Yes, it takes a whole lot of affirmative action for the leftist to pretend he's not a racist, and a whole lot of diversity to pretend he isn't intolerant of dissent. It takes a whole lot of coddling illegal immigrants to pretend they don't just want the votes, and whole lot of global warming to pretend they don't want to undermine the engine of global capitalism and progress. It takes a whole lot of outrage at President Bush to pretend they aren't allied with the Islamo-fascists, and a whole lot of talk about the "little guy" to pretend they aren't filled with class envy. And it takes a whole lot of multiculturalism to pretend they don't hate American culture and values, and a whole lot of fearful talk of separation between God and state to pretend they don't hate the former and love the latter.

Yeah boy, it takes a whole lot of moral relativism to pretend they're not immoral, and even more education to pretend they're not wrong.

There are far more complicated clinical terms for the kind of "nuanced" behavior Bob describes, but I don't have time today to go into any depth (see here and here if you are up for it) ; so I will just say-- with compassion and concern, of course-- that these people are nuts! and leave it at that.

Monday, May 28, 2007





That darkness had dominion over the human soul.








President Bush in his 2005 SOTU address said the following:















C.S. Lewis wrote:





- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 35th President of the United States

Sunday, May 27, 2007






1. Ignorance is Blix. Did you know that Vegetables have morality?

2. A surprisingly good plan to humiliate Bush. My Fair Imam; or, Why Can't a Zionist Be More Like Iran?

3. You just can't make stuff like this up about the 'religion of peace' a HR policy, it won't be implemented very soon, I'm sure.

4. With Fatwas like the one above, you can understand why their system of Shar'ia law has to deal with some really thorny problems . They have involuntary FGM; in the West, the foolish choose to mutilate themselves.

5. Free speech in the time of political correctness. Conspicuous consumption in victim status land.

6. War is just a bumper sticker.... and real torture is just another word for 'freedom-fighting'. You gotta love the left, taken as a whole, they are the largest victim group in the world--victimized that is, by oppressive reality. Take a walk through the concourse of hypocrisy.

7. I've finally been convinced that Bush should be impeached. The only problem is she's expecting them to be rational, logical and reality-based....If they were any of those, we wouldn't have to be so sarcastic in the first place.

8. But, they're only trying to look good on a budget.

9. 'President' Hugo Chavez, " expanding the rights of indigenous peoples from the Amazon rainforest to the Caribbean..."

10. NetRoot causes. Soon we will all be Hitlers. Case in point? Hmmmm. Acting like an anti-semite to make a point? That is just so clever.

11. A person's health is too important to be left to the individual. Immigration, the human cost.

12. Garbage disposal problems.......garbage creation problems.... how garbage disposal is done in Hollywood. An excerpt from the personal blog...

13. Once you have achieved entrance, it is not illegal anymore...interesting ramifications or a corollary of the Peter Principle? Mother told you it wasn't nice to do this.

14. It would be a whole lot simpler if Laura ran. If Hillary can do it, why not? But we already missed the 2008 election, apparently. It's all over but the voting.

15. No worries for the KKK!

16. No sweat divorce ! Just shop till you drop.

17. Russian climbing.

18. Relephant and irrelephant?

19. It's Memorial Day... remember those who fought and those who are fighting for our country.



Heard the Word of Blog?

Saturday, May 26, 2007


Andy McCarthy at The Corner says what needs to be said:
Folks, let's not let these guys get away with this. By "redeploy," they don't really mean move the troops to where they say al Qaeda is. They don't want to fight al Qaeda. If they wanted to fight al Qaeda, al Qaeda is in Iraq — that is indisputable. Bin Laden has said repeatedly that Iraq is the central battle. You can argue about whether al Qaeda has been in Iraq all along or whether they are there only because we've drawn them there. Reasonable minds differ on that. But however they got there, they're there.

If you really want to fight al Qaeda, you stay in Iraq.

If you really believe al Qaeda is not in Iraq — that the real al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan and its environs — then you're on drugs. But, sure, fine, "redeploy" our troops ... to Afghanistan. But can we please have five seconds of honesty? You guys don't have the slightest intention of doing that. You don't want to go to Afghanistan. You want to go home.

When you say redploy, you mean withdraw. You don't actually want to "focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11." You are content to bring the troops home and leave "the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11" to build a safe-haven in Iraq even as they continue to make mayhem in Afghanistan.

You think Bush is incompetent and "his" war in Iraq is a terrible mistake? Fine. You think the price of that is that we should pull everyone out of Iraq even though we all know that will be a monumental victory for al Qaeda — geometrically abetting its future fundraising and recruiting for future terrorist attacks on America? Fine.

But have the good grace to say so. Don't give us this BS that you want to redeploy to fight al Qaeda, when the truth is that you want to "redeploy" to NOT fight al Qaeda.

And, that is the heart of the matter. The political left and most Democrats are in psychological denial so deep that light can no longer penetrate its darkness even momentarily. They don't want to fight al Qaeda, because then they would have to admit that America is at war and that these last six years have not just been some bumper sticker created in the mind of George W. Bush.

Reality has been just too overwhelming for them. Just think of all the fundaental assumptions about the world and themselves they might begin to question.... I see this anxiety and dread all the time in my psychiatric practice--patients who are willing to do almost anything to end the chaos and dysfunction in their lives...except change their beliefs about themselves and the world. That is far too painful, Doc--how could I be so cruel to even suggest such a thing!

Now, usually when I use the "D" word on this blog, the insects come out of the woodwork to sneer that I am the one in denial. Don't I read the polls and understand that I am in the minority on this? Don't I see that the war is going badly and that American soldiers are being killed? Don't I understand that George Bush lied to get us into this war for various bizarre reasons? Don't I understand that there is no way we can possibly win against such odds? Don't I......etc. etc. etc.

Take a very close look at these rationales. These are not "strawmen" reasons. These are the things people say to me in comments here and in emails (although I have summarized them much more politely).

First, what relationship do polls have to reality? The only reality they reflect is what people happen to believe at a given moment in time. The reality of the consequences of leaving Iraq are not influenced by such nonsense. The reality that we are fighting al Qaeda and that Iraq is the central battlefield of the war we are in is not subject to majority opinion. It simply is fact. The reality will not go away because people refuse to believe it. Or, prefer to believe that this is a fantasy in George Bush's mind.

Yes, I concur that the war is going badly. It is extremely difficult to wage a war when there are hundreds of ill-informed and imcompetent generals managing things thousands of miles from the battlefield; and all of whom have agendas somewhat incompatible with success on that battlefield. I also don't deny that that there have been mistakes made on that battlefield or by the CIC. But then, I don't demand perfection in a war. I don't demand pure political correctness on the part of our soldiers. I don't demand that there be no casualties or deaths. I don't idealize the barbarians we are fighting; I don't put them on the same moral ground as us and I don't give their murderous behavior a free pass while weeping and wailing and wringing my hands at America's.

The only thing I do demand is that we do everything possible and necessary to ensure victory over the creatures we are fighting and that we establish the hope of a democratic country in that cesspool we call the Middle East. I understand that more Americans will die. I have made the [rational] assumption that this is exactly what nations have military organizations for; and that military personnel courageously choose to fight in order to protect those they love at home--otherwise they would not join the military and assume those risks.

Silly me, I guess.

I even understand that the war is .....gasp!....unpopular. But fortunately, I stopped worrying about being popular back in the 7th grade or thereabouts. That was when I realized that being popular had very little to do with being right. That being popular had almost nothing to do with reality. And that leadership, integrity, and courage are far more important in life.

You don't learn these truths from the Edwards & Obama Academy of Political Pandering; or at Hilary & Nancy's Day Care Centers.

The left, by refusing to face reality about Iraq and the war on terror, must find it awkward and just a bit embarassing to find themselves--yet again!-- in complete agreement with the absolute dregs of humanity. Indeed, rather than face reality, they willingly ally themselves with dictators, murderers, rapists, thugs and assorted psychotic insects. Their ever-deepening quagmire of denial is nothing, if not thoroughly encouraging and supportive of all types of loathsome cockroaches scurrying around in that part of the world who have nothing but the most peaceful of intentions.

How fortunate for them that in the wonderful world of denial, all sorts of fantasies are possible!

Friday, May 25, 2007


For anyone who has lingering doubts about the extent to which postmodernism and the trashing of history has thoroughly saturated Western culture, I refer you to this article from Reuters. Two points stand out. The first is this statement that is made without documentation as a simple matter of fact:
Millions of tribal Indians are believed to have died as a result of European colonization backed by the Church, through slaughter, disease or enslavement.
The only purpose of such a statement is to emphasize how bad European white culture is compared to the poor oppressed indiginous culture. This as we all know is the primary tenet of multiculuralism: all cultures are equally good, except fro Western culture which is evil evil evil. Al-Reuters could have escalated the provocation if only America had colonized Venezuela. Maybe though, they can alter history enough to ensure that happens.

The second is that this is a "news" article that contains the following laughable statement about the socialist thug currently consolidating absolute power in Venezuela:
Chavez, who has expanded the rights of indigenous peoples from the Amazon rainforest to the Caribbean, said he felt he was Indian because Venezuelans are a mix of the European race and indigenous peoples.

This is presented as undisputed fact. I mean, isn't Chavez wonderful? What a guy!! He has "expanded the rights" of the poor and oppressed indigenous peoples.

What is Reuters, Chavez' publicist?

Many dictators claim to be standing up for the "rights" of the oppressed; that's how those dictators get power. Hitler's preferred "oppressed: population were Aryans, as I recall; and, he also nationalized banks and industry to consolidate his power. Interestingly, while they are standing up for the rights of the oppressed, these very same champions almost always manage to find a group to demonized so that failure can be externalized and not blamed on the regime. Funny how it works like that, and Chavez is hardly an exception to this motif.

One of the commenters in my post on The Transformation of Education into Indoctrination makes the following excellent point:
There has recently been a survey of Australian High School history students which concluded that they were feeling guilty and uncomfortable at the way the colonial history curriculum was being taught. Similarly to the US, leftist educators have promulgated a "black armband" version of our colonial past and particularly as it appliied to the indigenous aborigines.
Any historian who dares to challenge this orthodoxy of genocide and subjugation is howled down as a racist and apologist for the imperialists.
This review of one particular book concludes with a calm but telling indictment of the postmodernist educational agenda.
"I want to conclude by looking at the motives of historians like Lyndall Ryan and why they write things which are apparently not true.

One critic of Windschuttle, Alan Atkinson, accused him of wanting to “take the discipline back to some golden age, when it was all about facts.” (Australian Book Review, February 2003, p 4 ). This sounds bizarre. We assume history books describe facts and are based on facts. If history is not supposed to be about facts and not based on facts, then what are you supposed to base it on?

This is an issue, which Windschuttle addressed in an earlier book The Killing of History and in several articles on his webpage, The Sydney Line, about history and postmodernism. As the word suggests, postmodernism means what comes after modernism. Modernism, in this context, means the belief that it is possible to find out the facts, to know what is true. Postmodernists believe that it is impossible to know the facts and find out what really happened in the past. They believe everyone is so politically and culturally biased that it is impossible not to be biased and to see things objectively as they really are, so the truth and facts are unknowable. They believe the traditional writing of history, based on facts and evidence, has been used to oppress women and ethnic minorities. So they believe the new purpose of history writing should be to be deliberately politically biased and write history that supports a political agenda, that is, propaganda, in favour of the oppressed minority, such as Aboriginal land rights in this context. Rather than basing what they write on the evidence, they twist or invent the evidence to support their political agenda, much in the same way that Communists used to rewrite history and make events disappear to make history fit their Communist ideology.
Postmodernists try to justify their bias and creative writing to make up for the way Aborigines or other minorities have been mistreated in the past. However, if they do not believe there are facts and it is impossible to know what really happened, then how can they know the minority group was mistreated or oppressed in the first place? Whatever our political agendas, what we believe about history has to be based on the evidence, not on what we would like to believe happened. "(
Emphasis mine)

In an earlier post about the intellectual origins of neoconservatism, which has been a counter-movement to postmodernism and seeks to reclaim historical perspective and preserve the intellectual heritage of Western civilization-- I discussed at length the postmodernist's tendency to rewrite history to make it to fit a particular ideological template. The points of that articale bear repeating, since, as the Chavez example glaringly demonstrates, postmodern mantras and manipulations are inserted everywhere--in news articles like the Reuters one linked above; in educational curricula and in art and even smoothly inserted into entertainment. Indeed, the ubiquitous propaganda generated by the postmodern worldview is designed specifically to ensure that no mind be allowed to come to any "unapproved" conclusions or have any "politically incorrect" thoughts flitting around in the synapses.

Big Brother is always watching and no area is too trivial or inconsequential that it can't be used as an object lesson on the correct way to think; witness the link above where even in a film that promotes bestiality in a positive and sympathetic manner, it's important to have the proper political perspective.

The postmodern slogans and talking points of the left are everywhere portrayed as if they were universal, incontravertible, and absolute truth. Which is very curious since postmodernists will tell you that all truth is relative-- except, of course, for postmodernism which is absolutely true.

As I noted:






On the deconstruction of the American past:
Likewise, the postmodern left means us to understand that the exploration of the world by the intrepid Europeans; the discovery of other continents and all colonization--in other words, the rise of Western civilization and its expansion westward only resulted in "slaughter, disease or enslavement"; and that this process is merely one of "white imperialism".

But consider, if we do not understand the past; if we abandon the ideas that underlie our values and our morality-- how can we appreciate who we are today? If we are only allowed to think of Thomas Jefferson as a hypocritical colonial slaveholder; if we only see history as evil white males enslaving or slaughtering the oppressed indiginous cultures-- then we are forced to pronounce Jeffersons ideas on the struggle for human freedom as no better and no worse than Hitler's Kampf; and human progress itself as "oppressive".



This is the postmodern quest. To establish themselves as the arbiters of moral behavior by behaving immorally; of calling themselves "reality-based" without the necessity of having to acknowledge reality; by speaking "truth" to power, without even being capable of recognizing truth (isn't all truth relative, after all?); and by teaching history that fits the marxist/socialist template.

In the specific example from Reuters at the beginning of this post, where the "journalist" has set himself up as the arbiter of moral behavior, the correct way to think is clearly spelled out for us. No other interpretation of history is permitted; and the underlying assumption is that all cultures are equally good and special, the white male-dominated Western culture is uniquely evil and its values must be denounced by all right-thinking people.

Thus, European colonization of the New World was particularly evil and wrong because it disrupted ("enslaved and slaughtered")all those peaceful and morally superior cultures that were already here. SC&A have noted:
...much has been made of ‘Colonialism’ as the scapegoat for hindering change, but clearly, that excuse is wearing thin. Colonialism has now become the watchword- and an excuse for those who refuse to join the rest of a modern and productive society.

The legacy of colonialism is what those former colonies made of it. More often than not, colonialists came into a society that was far behind their own, in terms of achievement, advancement and human progress. Notwithstanding the mythical and fabricated notions that ‘the white man’ came into primitive, peaceful and loving cultures, only to destroy them, the fact remains that these cultures and societies could have been greatly benefited by the advent of the ‘white man.’ Those societies resisted the advances they could have assimilated into their own culture.

It is true there were abuses, of course, as there are in any human endeavor. It is also true that taking advantage of modern day tools and ideas are not an all or nothing proposition. Even today, there are groups of people that refuse the tools that might make their lives easier.

Strange, isn't it, that the same people who are adamant that Darwin's theory of evolution must not be "contaminated" with any non-scientific dogmas like creationism; and can be heard screaming with outrage if any hint of religion is allowed to seep into the curriculum believe that indigenous cultures must never be contaminated by new ideas or behaviors. You wonder how the hell they imagine that "evolution" actually takes place in the real world--either on the cellular or societal level?

Evolution is adaptation to change and change is constant. And it is a process that goes on at every level of human existence--from genes to culture. Those "indiginous cultures" which they see as somehow superior to Western culture and are eager to add to their preferred victim group list, are subject to it and must be capable of adapting to change--or they will die out just as surely as the platypus and other extinct species. Adaptation will either makes them stronger or will undo their "superiority". "Survival of the fittest" does not give a free pass to the unfit and unadaptable morally virtuous; and as Siggy notes above, the interaction of cultures, while not always peaceful, almost always results in a dynamic exchange of strengths and an infusion of creativity and innovation. Under ideal circumstances, both cultures will absorb aspects of the other and be stronger because of it.

But idealize the primitive; keep it forever in amber; demand that it forever be immutable and "uncorrupted" by change or progress; or by freedom and innovation--and you have the recipe for cultural stagnation and the crushing of the individual mind.

The postmodern left elevates clowns like Hugo Chavez and call him a "liberator"; they swoon over despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro; and have champagne toasts with fruitcakes like Kim Jung Il.

Karl Marx once said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy and second as farce." And he was absolutely correct.

Marxism in its initial incarnation was the tragedy; and its current revival via postmodernism, is the farce.

UPDATE: I was thinking of the dodo, when I wrote the platypus. My bad. This error on my part clearly is convenient proof that nothing I say means anything. I am just crushed.

Thursday, May 24, 2007


See here and here for further comforting discussions about the latest polls.


Way back when I was just beginning to practice psychiatry, I had a young woman patient (17 years old) whose name was Chris. She was one of those extremely difficult patients who we suspected of having a Borderline personality disorder (BPD) (you really can't diagnose personality disorders before the age of 18 or so)--and if she didn't have BPD, she was well on her way to developing it. She used illegal drugs and claimed they "helped" her; she was impulsive and histrionic; she cut herself frequently; made suicide attempts regularly; and was so desperate for attention and love that she would lie, cheat, and do anything for to get it. She and I had a particularly difficult session one day; and that night I happened to be on call in the emergency room. I was awakened at 2:00 am by a call from a "friend" of Chris, who informed me that Chris's body had just been recovered from the ocean, where she had gone and killed herself because she was so angry at me.

I was devastated. I remember sobbing for some time after I hung up; overwhelmed with remorse and convinced that I had chosen the wrong career. Her death was all my fault and in my sorrow I considered leaving psychiatry, since I obviously was no good at it. I thought about what a sad, wasted life Chris had lived. If only I had paid more attention to her; listened more to her pain and not expected her to control her behavior. For three hours I was in a state of abject misery and hopelessness. I would have done ANYTHING to change the fact that she was dead.

At 6:00 am the page operator put through another call to me--from Chris.

"Oh, " she told me nonchalantly, "the body they found on the beach wasn't mine"; her "friend made a mistake"; "sorry about that" and "could I see you a day early next week?"

It was then I remembered that she had been angry at me because I was planning on going on vacation next week and had told only been able to schedule her for the week after.

It was amazing how quickly my remorse turned to anger. Not for a minute did I believe that this had all been a tragic misunderstanding. No, I had been incredibly, unmistakably HAD. My emotions had been played as if they were a song composed by my patient on an instrument of her choosing. My clinical supervisor laughed (laughed!) when I told him the story, and pointed out to me that this is what it felt like to be well and truly manipulated by a pro.

And it almost worked. Hadn't I thought to myself that I would do anything to have prevented what I had thought happened?

Such behavior, he went on, was pretty typical of the Borderline patient--so, why was I shocked at what had been done to me?

Indeed. Certain behaviors are predictable, though normal people can have a hard time wrapping their minds around the whys and wherefores. The "root cause" was not my going on vacation (if you go down that route, you might as well say that the root cause was my very existence as a separate person from Chris).

Wretchard noted earlier in the week:
Ralph Bennett argues at Tech Central Station that our tacit assumptions about the fate of 3 American soldiers captured in Iraq reflect an intuitive understanding of the nature of our enemy. One which we must at all events never acknowledge explicitly.
Think about it. If three Islamic fighters had been captured by the Americans, would there be any apprehension about their fate? Of course not. Despite all the fervid Abu Ghraib and Gitmo propagandizing of assorted leftists, pseudo-peaceniks and Democrat apologists, the general presumption is they would be treated decently.

But as soon as the news of the disappearance of these three American soldiers was released, the presumption was for the worst. For in the twisted world of Al-Qaida and its spawn of Islamofascists cruelty is first and second nature.

Not everybody reasons in this way. Some commentators are able to argue, with a straight face, that this is payback for Abh Ghraib. In fact, al-Qaeda itself maintains they are only exacting revenge for a crime committed by US soldiers

Now we have word that the body of one of the soldiers has been found, and there are reasons to believe that he suffered horribly at the hands of his captors before his death. Cruel torture and mutilation, as we know from experience with the ihadist, is part and parcel of their sociopathic and sadistic makeup--even for all their talk about Allah's "compassion and mercy." They will act out their fantasies of moral and intellectual superiority completely unaware that they are only offering proof of it utter absence.

The search continues for the other two soldiers, even as the truth we all understand is not explicitly stated.

We can expect no mercy from the barbarians we deal with. That is their nature. Not only that, we will hear repeatedly from people presumably on our own side (though whether they are on our side is becoming more and more doubtful) that our soldiers "deserved" such treatment at the hands of the enemy. Who could blame those poor jihadis for being upset at our invasion blah blah blah, and other sanctimonious intonations.

The murderous, sub-human thugs who could do this are not to be held accountable by the civilized world anymore. There will be no international court convened to try them for their atrocities; indeed, the court is too busy trying Americans for the presumed atrocities of flushing Korans down toilets and other assorted tortures against the poor, oppressed fanatics we are fighting. You will soon be made to understand that the soldier's death--all the soldier's deaths--is the fault of George Bush and Dick Cheney--the Hitlerian warmongering monsters of America.

Who knows what twisted logic makes a patient like Chris believe she is justified in behaving the way she did because, by her standards, I didn't appreciate or empathize with her plight correctly. The world is all about her needs and if the world doesn't respond adequately, then it will suffer--just as she suffers--for daring to ignore her.

At least for the Chrises of the world, there is some hope. The very fact that she came to see me week after week was an acknowledgement by her that her behavior in the world is dysfunctional and inappropriate. Underneath the pathology of her actions, she wanted to make a life worth living for herself--and she recognized she needed me to help her do it.

Chris is a beacon of mental health compared to the jihadists, who, rather than working to create a life worth living for themselves, would rather destroy yours and force you into the paranoid and malignant nightmare they choose to live in.

After I got over my angry feelings, that early episode with Chris's fake suicide actually taught me a very valuable lesson as a psychiatrist and as a person. I could not take responsibility for other people's behavior. That Way Lies Madness.

Taking responsibility for their behavior is exactly what all the terrorists of the world expect you to do. Their implicit message is that somehow YOU are the one responsible for THEIR murders. If YOU had behaved differently, then YOU would not have CAUSED THEM to behave the horrible way they did. THEY are the victims, and you are the perpetrators. That is of course the ultimate weapon of the terrorist, isn't it? To make you feel that you cause their murderous behavior? That the beheadings would not have occurred IF NOT FOR YOU?

This is the reason why you cannot negotiate with them no matter how hard you try and how much good faith you put into it.

You must put the responsibility for their actions back onto them and not permit yourself to be manipulated by their threats. If innocents suffer, it will not be because you don't pay the ransom or do what they want. Innocents suffer because the terrorists choose to make them suffer.

And those who appease and justify such behavior; or rationalize and empathize with it must ultimately share responsibility. It is they who have created the environments in which the deluded fantasies of the terrorists are able to flourish; it is they who have willing put a weapon into their hands of those who would murder and destroy; as they babble on about "root causes" and "compassion".

We know this, and yet the issue comes up over and over again, as we suffer the remorse and pain that these fanatics inflict. It is helpful to remember that terrorists inflict this pain deliberately and consciously; and that they exult at the idea of having so much power over us. As the now defunct animal Zarqawi once said very compassionately, “What is laughable is the insistence of the ministers of all infidel nationalities on the phrase ‘no negotiations’. As if there was any question of negotiation. Far from it - they must obey the demands of the Mujahadeen. If you refuse, we slaughter.”

The emotional connection between patients like Chris who, believe it or not function at a far far healthier level than a typical jihadist, is a simple one. The essence of both the borderline's and the sociopath's psychopathology is that they will try to make you feel as empty, worthless and dead inside as they themselves are.

Their sickness is that this behavior is the only pleasure they are able to experience in life. By accepting responsibility for their behavior and failing to hold them accountable, we have also placed ourselves on the path toward madness.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007


Once again, for the benefit of all intelligent and discerning listeners; as well as for the annoyance of the the reality-challenged community, this week's Sanity Squad Podcast has been posted at Pajamas Media Politics Central ! With the latest blatherings of former President Carter, we focus on leadership (or, in the case of Jimmy Carter, the lack of it) and how the celebrity culture we live in encourages excessive narcissism, grandiosity, and entitlement--but very little real leadership.

Most elected officials spend their time chasing polls and popularity, which leaves little room to do anything that is hard, unpopular or right. The Squad talks about the nature of good leadership and the importance of taking responsibility for one’s actions in the era of the rote public apology.

In fact, the mea culpa public apology and then checking into rehab is just another clever strategem elected officials have perfected in order to shirk any responsibility for his or her actions.

Join Siggy, Neo-neocon, Shrinkwrapped and I as we take no prisoners and make no apologies whatsoever on the latest podcast of The Sanity Squad.

All podcasts of The Sanity Squad can be found here; and you can also download them from iTunes. (search for Pajamas Media)

The Sanity Squad cartoon is drawn by Eric Allie, whose collection of political cartoons can be found here and here).


Last night I was reading the newly-released book, The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley; and it caused me to reflect once again about the man and the circumstances under which I metand interacted with him. Here is an excerpt from the diary entry from that day:
Friday, January 31 (1986)
At 8:45 on way to Andrews A.F.1 taking us to Houston for memorial service to Astronauts. Met with families at NASA Center--an emotional time. Then out to join some 14,000 people which included all the employees, family etc. of the entire space center....It was a hard time for all the families & all we could do was hug them & try to hold back our tears.

I've decided to re-post my recollection of that day, which was originally posted in January, 2006. Though it was a heart-wrenching time, I will forever feel extremely fortunate to have been a first-hand witness of the deep character and strength of this remarkable man. How lucky we all were as a nation to have had such a person be our President during those difficult and challenging years towrd the end of the last century!

Feel free to purchase the book by clicking on the image. I think it will be well worth your while.

RONALD REAGAN, A Personal Recollection

I vividly recall the day I met President Reagan almost exactly 20 years ago. It was one of the saddest days of my life. I was at the Johnson Space Center memorial service for the Challenger astronauts on the Friday after the Challenger accident. The President had come to JSC to honor the fallen crew and to heal the nation.




I had voted for Reagan in both the '79 and '84 elections (it was the first time I had voted Republican instead of Libertarian), but it wasn't until that moment that I truly understood the personal power of the man; his genuine warmth and the depth of his concern for someone he didn't even know. He instinctively seemed to understand that I had deliberately put aside my personal feelings about the tragedy because I had the awesome responsibility of taking care of all the crew family members (who were also my patients).

It crossed my mind even then, that he was telling me how much he identified with my situation and the responsibilities of my job. He had an entire nation to take care of, but it didn't mean he didn't personlly mourn for those who had died. It could be that I read too much into what he said, but I don't think so. He could have ignored me since I was standing off to the side from all the family members. But he went out of his way to find out who I was and then chose to come over to me.

I remember telling him in a choked voice how much his understanding meant to me and he looked at me with those clear, direct eyes of his and said, "You will be able to handle it. I know you will."

It seemed that I stared into those eyes for a long time (but it was probably only seconds) and then he turned away and signaled to the others that it was time to start the memorial service.

I actually got to stand on the platform while he spoke. This had been the spot prearranged for me to be so I would be able to observe the families in the front row and be ready to respond if they needed me. I couldn't have been more than ten feet or so away from the President during his eulogy and remarks.

I never spoke to President Reagan again, but at the end of the ceremony; after the missing man formation of T-38's had flown overhead, I accidently caught his eye, and he winked at me.

I will always remember his kindness and strength.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007



...with all due praise and glory to Steely Dan (pbuh) and Deacon Blues

This is the age of expanding jihad.
Our rage is no shame, when we're behaving bad.
It seems like only yesterday, the Caliphate went away
Crusaders, Jew Invaders, all make the past replay.
You call me fanatic, and mine's truly a crazy dream.
But virgins in heaven are all part of Allah's scheme.
It's useless to ask me why,
I pull the cord and wave goodbye;
I'll blow you to Kingdom Come.
Praise Allah, for making death fun....

Learn to work the IEDs,
To justly murder the infidel,
Read the Quran all night long,
And make my way to hell.
They've got a name for the winners in the world,
I only know how to lose.
They call other losers the mujahadeen...
Just call me Jihad Blues (Jihad Blues).

I'm just a poor helpless victim of Western greed,
My virtue's in what I say and not in my deed.
I want your willing submission to Allah the great--
And if you don't agree, then you'll get a taste of my hate.
I swarm like wild ants when Israel bombs the street.
Hide behind innocent children so I can avoid the heat.
I love making videos
As I behead those GI Joes--
My psychotic world,
Where insanity's all unfurled....

Learn to work the IEDs,
To justly murder the infidel,
Read the Quran all night long,
And make my way to hell.
They've got a name for the winners in the world,
I only know how to lose.
They call other losers the mujahadeen...
Call me Jihad Blues.

So this is the time of expanding jihad.
I take one last look as I depart Baghdad
And leave quickly for Lebanon,
Praise Allah the jihad is never done.
One day I'll finally be free,
To enjoy sex for eternity!

Learn to work the IEDs,
To justly murder the infidel,
Read the Quran all night long,
And make my way to hell.
They've got a name for the winners in the world,
I only know how to lose.
They call other losers the mujahadeen...
Call me Jihad Blues.


"Scandalous" is far too polite a term: (hat tip: Instapundit)

Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring--the book that got mosquito-killer DDT banned and launched the modern environmental movement--while struggling with cancer. The disease killed Carson in 1964, two years after Silent Spring came out.

Today's Washington Post has a story on Carson--whose 100th birth anniversary occurs later this month--and her noble fight against cancer. A touching piece.

But maddening, too! Because in the story's 34 paragraphs, there are only a buried pair, the 26th and 27th, that note the ongoing controversy about DDT's ban.

A Maryland Congressman (evil Republican, of course ... wink, wink) is quoted as saying that malaria deaths might have been prevented had DDT not been banned.

That happens to be true. DDT kills mosquitoes, which carry malaria, which was all but eradicated before DDT was banned.

Buried in paragraph 27, and paraphrasing the Congressman, The Washington Post concedes that "numerous" deaths might have been prevented by DDT.

Let's stop here. Any curious reader would ask, Just how "numerous" is numerous? Wouldn't you ask that question? The Post never asks that question. Why?

Because the answer devastates Rachel Carson and her followers. According to these CDC figures, malaria kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year.

Every year, 800,000 small children die from malaria, a disease once nearly eradicated. Ponder that.

And all The Washington Post can say is "numerous?"

That's scandalous.

I would term it "outrageous"; as well as thoroughly disgusting, but typical of a certain mindset.



For decades these pathetic do-gooders have sought to escape responsibility for the condequences of their fantasies. The world is littered with the corpses and awash in the tears of the people who they have "helped". Fantasy environmentalism is only one of a series of strategies they have fallen back on as they reassert their socialist ideology and attempt to chain all of humanity to its domination.


In this post I argued that multiculturalism, postmodern politically correct thought, and radical environmentalism were three of the four major strategies used by socialism's deadenders to keep their failed 20th century ideology alive.

In case you doubt the anti-human, anti-capitalist agenda of todays radical left environmentalists, here's a recent cartoon that sums it up for you:





The fundamental goal of these radical environmentalists is not to end global warming; instead, it is to discredit capitalism and to use global warming and other environmental concerns as a justification to impose their ideological and political agenda. They haven't a clue how to really counter the natural cooling and warming trends of the planet--but if they blame it on human beings, then the solution is to control people.






Neither represents real science.

Over at Gates of Vienna, the Baron noted in an earlier post:








Perhaps that is why they have consciously and deliberately joined forces with radical Islam, which suffers from the same inabilty to bring peace (unless you count death as the ultimate "peace") and prosperity to their adherents; and has the same fantasy.

Fantasy environmentalism -- bringing new life into the utopian agenda, and coming soon to a theater near you!

Monday, May 21, 2007



What the hell kind of a woman are you?































-sexual frustration;
-castration anxiety, and























Thank Allah I don't live in the west.

Yes, that is something to be thankful for.