There's A Dude In There I Just Know It

Iran's president says he has a wife. I say Prove it!

H/T Instapundit who is not married to a man

Jimmy Carter Needs To.....

Oh, I was going to say, shut up, but actually, that's not in the spirit of free speech. I think he needs to talk more. Just talk and talk and talk and talk. He is Barack Obama except, white and old. Every time he opens his yapper, people think, "Hey, that's what Democrats think and Barack Obama is a Democrat." I don't know if people think that, but I hope people think that. So keep on talking Jimmy. Your bitterness and loathing seep through every word and deed. I don't think Mr. Carter will ever forgive America for not loving him. We are just that stupid. It's a heavy burden he has to live with, no longer being able lead the dumbest people on the face of the planet.

Iran's Leaders Are Cuckoo

In case you missed it, Ahmadinejad expressed his warm fuzzies for Israel again:

Speaking of which: always one with the quick quip, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “labeled the Zionist regime as a ‘stinking corpse’ and said those who think they can revive the corpse of this fabricated and usurper regime are in mistaken."

If you think he was taken out of context, well, that’s from the Iranian news agency. It’s enough just to point out the quote and let it sit there and stink. File that one away with the others. The future should never come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention.

It is easy to get inured to insanity in this post-modern age. Surely, a civilized looking human cannot have genocidal desires. As Dr. Sanity says, though, psychopathology is woven in and through Islamic society:

Then, don't forget all the other superpsychos whose megalomaniacal blood lust and chilling disregard for their fellow human beings are unparalleled in modern history. Names like Osama Bin Laden, Aymen Al-Zawahiri, Moqtada Al-Sadr...the list goes on and on and on, encompassing a great many of the Imams and "holy" leaders. Never have so many wanted to kill so much because it is so essential to their identity.

Then there is this guy, who seems a bit unclear on the concept of "antisocial".

So, why is this sort of hate and viciousness celebrated in the Islamic world? I note in a series on the psychopathology of terrorism that along with the parenting issues, cultural factors play an extremely strong role in personality formation and can under certain circumstances "stack the cards" against normal develoment even if all other factors are benign (which they aren't, actually, but read the entire two-part article if you are interested).

Several key factors that contribute to the development of psychopathy include:

Genetics

Constitution/temperment

Parenting

Culture

Children who happen to be born into authoritarian or tyrannical regimes are frequently systematically indoctrinated and programmed (by teachers or political authorities) to develop habits of thought and behavior at variance with healthy parenting and inconsistent with normal human values. Such programming can easily deform personility development in a variety of ways--none of them very healthy or humane. It is easy in such tyrannical regimes to become rigid; or mindlessly obedient; or cruel; or rebellious, bitter etc.

We shouldn't be surprised when a professed lover of killing actually kills. It's what he's been programmed to do. He'll do it eventually.

Iran Provokes the U.S.: Open War .... Almost

You should know about this, if you haven't read about it already.

Why Do We Care?

Why do we care about the Middle East? When people ask me that question, it still shocks me. Do they really not get it? Maybe with the murder of Benazar Bhutto of Pakistan, we need a reminder why it is in America's, in the world's best interest, to care about this sandy, forsaken landscape half-way around the world.

It has been my belief since the beginning that George W. Bush entered Iraq secondarily because of Saddam Hussein's WMD flirtations. Yes everyone, including the lily livered Democrats and squishy Republicans, believed Saddam was a bad guy desiring to do bad things with bad substances. He had done bad things. It wasn't a stretch that he'd do more bad things. But that didn't seem to me to be the most compelling reason for Iraq. To me, and I feel that George Bush must have seen this too, Iraq is first and foremost a strategic launching pad. For all Saddam's bluster, he was weak. No one could imagine how weak until the Yanks marched through Iraq. It happened so quickly, everyone was stunned. But the fall and subsequent search for scant WMDs mattered less than being planted as a bulwark against crazy in the Middle East.

Iraq borders Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, a couple Stans and a lovely thing called the Persian Gulf. Trouble brews in every place on the list. And trouble there means trouble everywhere. Russia trembles with hypermasculine impotence. Any way to cause trouble to the alpha males of the world will be and are being embraced. Putin squeezes Europe already. Georgia sits like a plum in a vice. Iran would happily be the conduit for Putin's displeasure. More on all this here.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Pakistan boil with extremism. Here's what's happening now:

"We've really got a new situation here in western Pakistan," said Army Col.
Thomas Lynch III, who has served in Afghanistan and with Central Command, the
U.S. military headquarters for Pakistan and the Middle East. He said the
assassination marks a "critical new phase" in jihadist operations in Pakistan
and predicted the coming months would bring concentrated attacks on other
prominent Pakistanis.

"The Taliban ... are indeed a growing element of the
domestic political stew" in Pakistan, said John Blackton, who served as a U.S.
official in Afghanistan in the 1970s and again 20 years later. He noted that
Pakistani military intelligence created the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Pakistan must take drastic action against the Taliban in its midst or we will face the
prospect of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of al-Qaida — a threat far
more dangerous and real than Hussein's arsenal ever was," he said, referring to
the deposed Saddam Hussein.

Nuclear warheads in the hands of Jihadists in a country where 40% approve of Osama. America may not be able to do anything from Afghanistan to stop willful annihilation, but I hazard to say it could do less without a mid-east presence.

And Pakistan is a crazy little country compared to China with her supersized ambitions. Imagine the panic should China not get the fuel needed to keep its economic engine humming. Forget for a moment American's cries of despair at being deprived of cheap consumer products, the bigger problem would be an unstable country armed to the teeth.

Don't forget Israel, either. Like Tawain, Israel is a freedom-loving democracy, and America is about democracy building, remember? As shaky as that idea may be as a long-term solution to extremist middle east regime problems, there is one democracy that thrives over there. Should that country be abandoned?

Oh yeah, there's this other little thing called oil. I never have understood what's so upsetting about trading a little blood for a lot of oil. If China, Japan, Europe and America come to a screeching halt economically, the next step would be, inevitably, war. And there would be a whole lot more blood spilled. The whole world is entertwined in ways that could have never been imagined during the World War II era. The internet reflects a world interconnected.

Our fate rests in the Middle East as much as any other country's. The Jihadists hate freedom. They hate life. They believe they have a holy mission. If Pakistan crumbles, if Iran arms, if Afghanistan turns back to the Taliban, if China becomes aggressive, if Russia presses, if, if, if, the free people of the world have big problems.

America is in the Middle East because, well, isn't it obvious?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Religious Freedom In Iran

Are you reading Gateway Pundit? There's a reason he's in my Socratic Corner. He's passing along this news: An Iranian Christian couple whipped for attending a sermon. Hanging gays and beating Christians, there would seem to be something for everyone to hate about Iran, but no. Ahmadinejad hates Bush. That's enough to win him the perverse grace of the Left.

Jim also reports the declining numbers of casualties in Iraq with the graphs to make it easy for everyone to understand. He calls the success the "Bush Surge". Do you think the phrase will catch on in the press?

A Country of Mass Murderers--UPDATED

As more stories emerge from the Holocaust, many wonder at the average people doing above average work at jobs that never should have been. Truly, you must go look at the pictures. The jolly laughter during the photo shoot by the young women running toward the camera collides with the reality that these same beautiful girls were shaving the heads and sending women, men and children to gas chambers just down the road. Roger Cohen calls them "fresh faced and playful" in his Op-Ed Down Time From Murder. That's right. By the way, they were mass murderers.

Americans were rightly horrified at the image of Lynndie England making fun of naked or semi-dressed, humiliated Iraqi prisoners. Her friends report that the person in the picture was not the person they knew before her time in Iraq. No doubt, this is true. But the woman did take a psychological journey with her physical one. What happened?

Clearly, she de-individualized the prisoners. One could make the psychological case for dehumanizing an enemy who would as soon kill you, exterminate you, as look at you. Especially for an angry young woman, taunting an ostensible misogynist or killer of a friend might be conceivable. That is, it is possible to rationalize how she got from soldier to persecutor. It is possible to understand how she might lose her humanity and debase herself facing an enemy who would kill her given the opportunity. It's also why it was understandable to see men rejoice at the hanging of Saddam. It wasn't comfortable to look at, one migt disapprove perhaps, but one could understand.

The innate sense of justice most people have recognizes the eye for an eye. Capital punishment is a form of justice that equalizes the losses. A murderer, by his choice, forfeits his life. The world is rid of his potential further harm. The family of the victim knows that the perpetrator won't get the benefit lost to the victim: life.

But what of innocent victims? How did German "nurses" justify killing children?

Actually, it's probably rather simple. The Germans viewed the Jews as villains. Eventually the Jews very existence was a threat. The Jews deserved to die. Step two is to dehumanize the villain. They aren't really human. Step three is distance oneself from actions. Rationalizing can be I'm only cutting their hair or I'm only giving them a shower or I'm stuck in this job so I need to do my best. Step four is denying responsibility, i.e. engaging in group think. John is doing it, I respect John, so it must be OK. When the group is responsible the responsibility is to the group members.

Germany demonstrated psychopathic tendencies en masse. Here's a description from the Slate article about the Columbine killer Eric Harris, deemed by experts as a psychopath:

"Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders," writes Dr. Robert Hare, in Without Conscience, the seminal book on the condition. "Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised."

The German people, though were rational and aware of what they were doing and why. They chose.

Were the German people especially evil or do all people have the seeds to do something equally destructive? I think it's the latter. I remember Stalin demonstrating how difficult it was to brave and morally courageous in the atmosphere he created. The quote eludes me. Expedience rules the day, eventually.

For the victims and the world, it was incomprehensible what Hitler, his minions and his thousands of servants planned to do. And that's the point of a telegenic guy like Ahmadinejad. Too many people can't imagine he means it. His population hasn't bought into his rhetoric and that's the difference between Iran and Germany, at least thus far.

A whole country desiring to externalize blame for internal misery, an hypnotic speaker, authoritarianism, bureaucratic detachment and dehumanization make a powerful stew to breed psychopaths. The whole society reinforced asocial behavior.

Because humans can choose, they can choose badly. Ironically, the desire to control free will ends up resulting in the unintended, or too often, intended, consequence: a monolithic, authoritarian Borg-like creature imposing its will on the masses and eventually their enemy.

The only possibility is to guard as individuals against the impulse to control. It's also important to pick leaders who will guard against the impulse to control.

UPDATE: One of the big problems with the Left these days is their projection and utter lack of perspective. Painting the country in fascist terms displays a lack of respect for true fascist regimes and the death and destruction those regimes wrought. Here's an example that John Hawkins highlights:

When *ss-kissing chickensh*t David Petraeus lied his *ss off before Congress about the failed "surge", capitol hill police tackled and arrested a pentecostal minister, damaging his ankle in the process.
...If you think America isn't undergoing the same slide into fascist dictatorship today as Germany did in the 1930s, you're kidding yourself.

...Those two reasons, more than the brutal assaults on people and the First Amendment, are why America is devolving into a bad replay of Nazi Germany. The lack of national outrage, to the point we do something about it; and the support of it by mindless groupthinkers in society who are so stupid they think it's a good thing that we're being subjected to tyranny.

John says, "It is nothing less than borderline mental illness masquerading as political thought and it is the rule, not the exception, on the Left today."

These people ignore the obvious: no jack boot is kicking them in the head, putting them in jail or denying their free speech. It's called disagreement and diversity of opinion. That the whole populace doesn't drink the same crazy juice doesn't mean they're fascists. But the Left continues display complete intolerance for a differing opinion about policies, diplomacy, and strategy.

It is exactly those intent on imposing their views who make me nervous. And the fascist rhetoric needs to be saved. It's insulting to people who endured real fascists.

UPDATE AGAIN: From LGF, a simpler explanation of Why?

Courting Killer: Columbia Was Chosen For A Reason

It now seems that Ahmadinejad chose Columbia (they didn't invite him) because of Columbia's storied past. Columbia invited Hitler's envoy. This was what then President Butler said:

In response, President Butler harrumphed something about how Columbia "does not ask what a man's opinions may be but only whether he is intelligent, honest, and well-mannered in their presentation and discussion. There is no subject which a company of scholars such as that assembled on Morningside Heights, is not prepared to have presented to it by a man or woman of high intelligence and good manners, and to hear fully discussed and debated." When the "well-mannered" Herr Luther made his appearance on Morningside Heights, it seems only to have whetted the Nazi lust — and to have established a precedent for abasement. It turned out that the only kind of intercourse the Nazis understood was the kind conducted by General Eisenhower, who not only liberated Europe but went on to Morningside Heights, where he brought great distinction to the presidency of the University.

Columbia's modern president shows the same kind of moral obtuseness and it's astounding. Because Ahmadinejad spits his venom at a common enemy, George Bush, a good portion of the Left don't mind that the poison would ultimately kill them, too.

This is where consuming hatred gets a person: the line between rage and suicide blends. Would Dean Coatsworth rather die than honor his own country? If Ahmadinejad has his way, everything Western, American, Israeli, Jewish and Democratic will give way to Sharia and death squads and extermination. Dean Coatsworth would not be spared this fate, his lofty ideals notwithstanding. Back to a quoted Jeff Goldstein post of yor:

And so we have Islamic fascists exploiting the postmodern rhetorical assumptions of a western socialist / progressivist left in order to bring about the spread of totalitarianism.

Goldstein says today:

"Of course we’d invite Hitler to speak”
So says the Dean of Columbia. Sadly, no follow-up question asking how he might react should der Fuhrer get a little tipsy at the post-speech cocktail party and order his band of traveling storm troopers to stuff a dozen or so gypsies, a gay couple, and 6 million Jews into one of the caterer’s mobile convection ovens.

Which is a shame, really, because I think there’s half a chance we’d have been treated to a bit about “respecting cultural differences.

It is doubtless that Ahmadinejad knows Columbia's history. He chose Columbia for a reason. He knows our history even if the scholars choose to forget theirs. These Western elites don't mind being played for fools. Again. That's why I don't call them Useful Idiots. They are worse than useful because they are not idiots. They are intelligent. They know the game and they have chosen a side and they don't stand for freedom, no matter how they spin it. They stand for oppression and extermination. Anyone with any sense will revile them. Men like Dean Coatsworth are disgusting human beings.

P.S. This is the same institution who wouldn't allow the Minutemen to engage in the free exchange of ideas. Some ideas are more "correct" than others.

Why Columbia Invited A Terrorist (Ahmadinejad) To Speak

Jeff Goldstein explains the emotionalizing by Columbia and academic elites. It's certainly not reasoning. There is nothing reasonable about giving this thug a platform of legitimacy. Of course, calling him a terrorist and exterminator wannabe would be judgmental:

Or, to put it another way, Summers’ arguments amount to hate speech within the enlightened paradigm of post-Enlightenment thinking. Whereas Ahmanidinajihadi’s arguments must be viewed through the prism of Islamic fundamentalism, which we cannot presume to understand, and so are in no position to judge.

Well, until we’re willing to strap on a vest and shred some Jews for Allah, that is.

Make you a deal, though: the minute an Islamic fundamentalist criticizes his Islamic fundamentalism, we will construe that as a valid criticism. Before we dismiss it as the criticism of one who, by virtue of that criticism, is no longer an authentic Islamic fundamentalist, and so is no longer granted the kind of authenticity necessary to level a legitimate critique of Islamic fundamentalism.

— Which, if that seems a bit counterintuitive, we can chalk up to a fidelity to western modes of “logic” that require the kind of intellectual consistency that is no longer obligatory under post-Enlightenment paradigms. Because western “logic,” grounded as it is in western assumptions, may not jibe with Islamic fundamentalist logic, which is grounded in competing assumptions that, like our own, are but a function of a particular consensus — no more “right” or “wrong” than our own.

If this seem convoluted, that's kinda the point.

Iran's Crazy Men

On the same day Ahmadinejad asks to visit Ground Zero, Iran is said to be putting together plans to attack Israel.

There might be a time to have U.S. troops out of that viper pit just so they don't end up in the fallout--literally.

France Threatens Iran with War

It's amazing how much a country changes when their leadership changes.

Iran: What's New Pussycat?

Mark Steyn reminds the West that Iran holds three American hostages. Three. Why won't the press talk about it?

They would prefer to look at Iran as a sweet little kitty instead of the maturing tiger that would like to roar. And with nukes, they will do more than roar:

In America, public opinion is in no mood for war with Iran. In Washington, Congress is focused on finding the most politically advantageous way to lose in Iraq. In Europe, they've already psychologically accepted the Iranian nuclear umbrella. In the western world, where talks are not the means to the end but an end in themselves, we find it hard despite the evidence of 30 years to accept that Iran talks the talk and walks the walk. Once it goes nuclear, do you think there will be fewer fatwas on writers, stonings of homosexuals, kidnappings in international waters, forced confessions of American hostages, and bankrolling of terror groups worldwide? These latest hostages are part of a decades-old pattern of behavior. The longer it goes without being stopped, the worse it will be.

Maybe the EU is so far gone, they'll be allied with Iran.

If America Leaves Iraq

Beautiful words said in meaningful ways can change the world. All great leaders know this, no matter their political or philosophical stripe. Michael Totten, reporting from Northern Iraq and interviewing the Kurds and Peshmerga Army, quotes Colonol Mudhafer, who says this:

“You should know that Kurds are the main friends of the Americans in the Middle East,” he said. “In the past we had only God and the mountains as friends. But now we want Americans to support us in all matters, to be another mountain. Our Minister of Peshmerga has great relations with the American forces. We are in the same trench and we are fighting the terrorists just like Americans are. It will be in the future this way, also. Not one American person has been wounded in this area. We have a real alliance with America. We are proud of this relationship. We want the American nation to know we are real friends.”

America should be a mountain for people such as these and they have been a moutain. Totten is not so sure.

He worries about being used by the Kurds to get out a message. Probably. He acknowledges this slant and reports what he sees which is enough for me and more than the MSM often provides.

Personally, my heart is with any person sincere in his desire to die for freedom. When you see the pictures of these people who are integrating cultures, languages, religions and genders (go look at the pictures of the "officers club") you see a people not unlike Americans who are managing to melt together for a bigger idea. This is very different than most of the world, including Europe. Europe does not integrate foreigners and any so-called union is really a conglomerate of nationalistic states gluing themselves together for expedience sake. So, yes, I believe the Kurds deserve America's unreserved support. And yes, I believe a nice big American base would be a strategic hedge in a land filled with tension.

The Kurds don't buy the notion that Americans in Iraq cause the tension. Al Jazeera and Democrats do believe this or pretend to believe this. Fundamentally, ignoring American politics (as if that's not the most important factor driving the Democrats) , but for the sake of argument, ignoring American politics, the argument for getting America out of Iraq would be that magic peace would descend if Americans were out.

If Americans leave Iraq what would happen would be chaos and higher gas prices and terrorism on a grander scale and war in the power vacuum and shame for America. What little respect and honor we retained after Vietnam (leaving allies to be slaughtered tends to lower your profile) we would lose. America is resilient, but in a world where strength, resolve and might is everything (even and especially to Europe), leaving and losing will tarnish America and reduce our influence. Of course, that's exactly what the Democrats and the Left really desire. It fulfills multi-culti moral-equivalence fantasies. It ensures eventual destruction.

"Knotting One Mischief At A Time"

What are Iran's Mullahs up to? This:

So far, the West’s response has been timid and occasional. The mullahs play a long-term game, acting as carpet-weavers, knotting one mischief at time, day in and day out. They know that their fragile regime, hated by a majority of Iranians, would not survive a full-scale clash with the West. This is why they deal their poison in small but steady doses, enough to weaken the foe but not too much to mobilise Western opinion in favour of full confrontation.

They won this round.

British Sailors To Be Freed Soon

Finally.

Can we start blowing things up now? And will the British change their rules of engagement in the Persian gulf so this doesn't happen again?

A Democrat's Sensibilities

The Left in America, what with the conspiracy theories about fifteen British sailors being a vast sophisticated Bush plot to engage America and Britain in another losing war over "nothing" seem intent on raising the bar to where there is never any reason ever for war. Do Iran's actions even offend a Democrat's sensibiliites or is it fine to kidnap soldiers at will?

And then Nancy Pelosi visits an enemy state and sups with a murderous dictator intent on destabilizing a fragile, hopeful Democracy in Lebanon. That's okay, too.

And Russ Feingold says it's time to defund the war in Iraq, just when things look like they'll turn around. And that's okay, too, because he knows a way to do it that won't hurt the troops. Sure, he does, because he's a super-special Senator with a secret magic ring that will turn cowardice into conquering heroism. In fact, that magic is used every day in Congress--why won't it work with soldiers?

The Democrats act as though America has no external threats, this game-playing about Iraq, this minimizing Iran, this entreating Syria, this aggression towards President Bush is rational. Do they really believe that in 2008, America will be nirvana, utopia, peace on earth just because Bush is out of office? Will they focus their animus on the new leader of the free world as they have with Bush? Captain Ed points to Jonathan Weisman's WaPo piece titled: Democrats to Widen Conflict with Bush.

Yes, Bush is the enemy and the world would be safe save for him.

Rosie O'Donnell Is A Loon

What I find disturbing about The View, isn't just the dull-witted hosts; the more disturbing aspect of The View is that thousands of women watch that forsaken show. These very uniformed women spout nonsense day in and day out and it is hardly challenged. Elizabeth Hasselback is the foil for the ugly, dumber girls who can't get a date. By pounding on her incessantly, all the women live out their young, blond and beautiful loathing fantasies. What's even more galling to them is that Elizabeth is more intelligent than them, too.

So Rosie blithely spouts off a series of conspiracy theories: the U.S. and England let the sailors get caught to start a world war for MONEY! and Tower #7 went down in a controlled demolition, but controlled by who? Hmmmmmmmmmm? Cue the scary music. And the audience claps enthusiastically and Joy Behar nods sagely. Ugh. And American women watch that garbage and feel smugly smart and informed.

Jeff Goldstein has more.

Iran Hostage Crisis

Blair is provocative for implying a military conflict might occur if the kidnapped sailors aren't returned. Cap'n Ed asks is Blair Carter or Thatcher?

Every moment that passes, Iran wins. What the hell was a woman doing out there? A mother, no less. Nothing like giving the Iranians perfect propaganda fodder. There is a reason women shouldn't be in combat situations. Would people worry as much if it were a bunch of guys? Some worry, yes, but it takes a different tenor when a mother is involved and then the humiliation of the head covering. It just pisses me off.

Iran Can Just Try American Hostage Taking

Americans can shoot the scum in self-defense. Excellent.

Sanctioning Iran

"It's a difficult situation in which we find ourselves," said Nana Effah-Apenteng, the ambassador from Ghana. "I think it would be better for them to wait and get consensus."

That's the problem with the U.N. in a nutshell--waiting for consensus.