ShrinkWrapped

Political Correctness & the Denial of Reality: Part I

Political Correctness differs from politeness in its basic relationship to reality. 

When one is polite, one refrains from saying or doing anything that is harmful to another person.  There is no problem assessing the reality of the situation but there is also the appreciation that calling attention to the issue is unnecessary and can be painful to the person involved.  Everyone can agree that rudeness makes daily life more difficult and can lead to unfortunate outcomes.  Since it is cost-free to be polite, I highly recommend it in all interpersonal interactions. 

Political Correctness, on the other hand, requires a denial and disavowal of unpleasant aspects of reality.  When it becomes the accepted norm, it actively distorts the perception of reality and prevents people from recognizing problems and taking appropriate actions.

Today, in a brief sally through the blogosphere, I found a host of articles which directly or indirectly exhibit their genesis in a politically correct world view.  The distortion and unreality involved is apparent.   My brief summary of a small portion of the blogosphere is in service to my interest in furthering an understanding of the roots of political correctness and the necessity of confronting it at every turn.

The Elites and the Left

Last night, President Bush gave a speech reiterating what we already know or should know about the Iraq front in the war on Islamic fascism (though he was constrained in his ability to so characterize it).  The Democrats and the MSM reacted predictably.

Powerline  quotes from an AP report:

Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq...

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

John Hinderaker concludes that:

Pelosi's claim that there is "no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" is mind-numbingly obtuse.

He then goes on to list all the many connections between 9/11 and the war.  The disconnect between the MSM and political elites (not to mention academia) is truly alarming.

Today, Dr. Zin at Regime Change Iran has a post on possible proof that the recent (s)election in Iran was a complete fraud.  No one who relies on the MSM would have any idea that this so-called election was a complete sham and that the turn out was even lower than in previous elections.  Of more concern, My Pet Jawa has an extensive post, complete with pictures and links, which shine some light on the new Iranian President's past history.  He has an impressive resume.  Prior to being appointed Mayor of Tehran, he was a hostage taker, a murderer, and a torturer.  Perhaps to our allies in Europe and the MSM it is not worth mentioning that a noted terrorist has been elevated to the Presidency in Iran, though one might naively imagine the leadership of Iran moving in an even more radical direction while being assisted by Vladimir Putin to develop nuclear weapons might catch the eye of an alert editor at the New York Times. 

In light of the ongoing slanting and neglect of the news by The New York Times and others, questions occur.

The New York Times and the News

I was impressed with this story in today's New York Times about Iraqi attitudes toward the American occupation.  In fact, I was so impressed I thought I would include the first few paragraphs.  And just for fun, I thought it might be interesting if anyone else noticed the subtle New York Times' imprimatur on the story...not only in what they include but even more importantly, in what they "forget" to include.

Iraqis Expressed Ambivalence About Direction of Country
By EDWARD WONG
Published: June 28, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 28 - Haydar Farman strode from a back room in the office where he had been eating grilled chicken with other engineers. Sipping from a can of Diet Pepsi, he began trying to sort through feelings about his country that were as intricately wound as the concertina wire running through these streets.

It had been exactly a year since the Americans had handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis. A year of bombs and ballots, of hopes realized and dashed.

"Sure, there are differences since the handover of sovereignty; there are negative and positive changes," said Mr. Farman, 34, a clean-shaven mechanical engineer. "The most important thing is the success in holding elections despite the difficult situation."

"As for the security situation, it is less than our expectations," he added.

But were the Iraqis really running the show now? Were they masters of their own house?

"The major decisions, especially military ones, are still in the hands of the Americans," Mr. Farman said.

In dozens of interviews across the sweltering capital today, Iraqis expressed ambivalence about the direction the country was heading, the American presence here and the two governments that have taken power since the handover of sovereignty. Their feelings were often murky, their words contradictory - an indication, in other words, of the ever-shifting nature of the war and the fog over the political landscape.

In this unscientific survey, one thing was clear, though: The sense of triumphalism that some Iraqis had seized on during the handover itself, and later in the parliamentary elections of January, had given way to an acceptance of hard reality.

"I don't feel there is an Iraqi government, and the changes are so small and slow," said Thamir Muhammad, 41, a computer operator sitting by a keyboard in a building near Mr. Farman's office. "I believe the power is still in the hands of the Americans because there have been no significant changes.

"The Americans should give the Iraqis the authority to make major decisions, and in return they can receive guarantees to ensure their interests."

A year ago, Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite Arab close to the Central Intelligence Agency, took the office of prime minister. He was followed by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a religious Shiite whose party, with the backing of powerful clerics, had won big in the elections. No matter which of those administrations the Iraqis talked about, they generally had the same complaints - no electricity, no water, and, worse of all, no security.

I don't read the Times as often or as carefully as I used to but a couple of things stand out in this article. 

Update on Letters to Schumer & Clinton

10 days ago I wrote a note to my Senior Senator expressing my disgust at Senator Durbin's remarks comparing our efforts at Gitmo with the Nazis, the Gulag, and Pol Pot.   I then sent a modified version of the same note to my Junior Senator, Ms. Clinton.  Since then, Durbin has made his crocodillianly tearful, hardly-heartfelt, non-apology apology and apparently my two Senators felt that that was the end of the matter. 

Needless to say, neither Senator has responded to this constituent.  I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.

I closed my note with the following:

We are at war, Senator.  If you do not think we are at war, convince me of your position; otherwise, tell your colleagues to stop impeding our military in their efforts to win this war.

Nothing has occurred to change my mind...my disgust with our "disloyal opposition" grows.

The Democrats, Narcissism, and Self Destruction

Last week, the MSM and the Democrats spent a lot of time and energy attacking Karl Rove for saying,

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to . . . submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the . . . terrorist attacks against the United States."

James Taranto of Opinion Journal, today  summarizes the Democrat's responses since 9/11:

Made MoveOn.org a center of their grass-roots political effort and a frequent speaking venue for former and current Democratic officials, including Al Gore, Robert Byrd and Harry Reid.

Embraced Michael Moore, giving him an honored seat at the party convention in Boston last July. When Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11"--surely the crassest effort to politicize the attacks--had its Washington premiere, many Democrats showed up, including the party's then-chairman, Terry McAuliffe, and its then-Senate leader, Tom Daschle. "There might be half of the Democratic Senate here," then-senator Bob Graham of Florida observed.

Nominated for president a man who opportunistically opposed the liberation of Iraq after having voted for it (or opportunistically voted for it before opposing it, or both), and who cast a protest vote against funding the troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Made a whole host of statements that reflect precisely the attitude Rove imputes to them--from Sen. Patty Murray's description of Osama bin Laden as a philanthropist who builds, among other things, "day care centers" to Sen. Dick Durbin's Nazi calumny. GayPatriot has a list.

A politician's primary goal is always to get elected, and then to get re-elected.  Every other part of their job description depends on achieving the primary goal.  This makes the behavior of the Democratic party puzzling.  Obviously, for some Democrats, taking a position that is shared by only a small, relatively extreme, part of the electorate does not present a problem.  Consider the two Senators from my state of New York; no amount of Bush bashing or denigration of the military would affect their chances of re-election.  But the party as a whole should be able to recognize that at a time when American men and women are in harm's way, protecting us against some of the most vile, inhumane villains, who would like nothing more than to murder as many of us as possible, the continuing, exaggerated attacks on the military and the administration are unlikely to help them achieve their primary objective, which is to regain control over the mechanisms of government.  Why have they apparently failed to notice how out of step they are with the American people?

I have written quite a bit about the Narcissism of the never grown-up 1960's left, a sizable portion of my demographic cohort.  There is a trait of the Narcissist that may help shine some light on the problem. 

Firefly Update

Serenity is coming this September.    Go now and read the article at the Daily Standard and you will not be disappointed.

The Browncoats Rise Again
The best sci-fi TV series you've never seen has gone from cancellation to the big screen. Will a never-tried marketing strategy work for "Serenity"?
by M.E. Russell

While the article is more about the genesis and innovative marketing of the movie, there are some tidbits about the movie:

SO HOW'S THE MOVIE? Well, despite a title that makes it sound like a Buddhist art film (and a logo that looks like a sign for a boutique candle store), Serenity is a harrowing, slightly dented Firefly series finale.

Read it all.

Cookie Monster, PC, and the Fall of Western Civilization

I have commented on a number of occasions about how Political Correctness interferes with people's ability to think clearly, and I plan to do some more extensive work on this in the near future.  Until then, for your perusal, a letter from my two middle children, who were rather distressed to find out that their childhood friend, Cookie Monster, has been effectively neutered by the PC police at PBS; they are trying to get people to write supporting letters to PBS to save a piece of their childhood:

http://pbskids.org/help/write.html

To whom it may concern:
We are Reed and Brittany ________, of Westchester, N.Y.  Although we are huge fans of PBS programming, we are writing about a very serious concern.  We were recently informed of a terrible travesty on Sesame Street.  When we were children we used to watch the show with regularity and enjoy singing along to the catchy tunes. Apparently, kids cannot do that anymore. Cookie Monster has ended his long time love affair with his favorite food, resulting in over-the-top P.C. lyrics.  It is alarming that anyone at the station finds this change necessary and proper.  Why have you done this?  We realize that your intent is to provide children with exemplary role models, but since when is Cookie Monster one of the role models on the show?  He is overweight and cannot even swallow, facts that were quite obvious to us, even as children.  To us, his place in the show was to teach us basic information via his humorous nature.  What's next?  A homeless shelter for Oscar?  Less Valium for Snuffy?  Our childhood memories of Sesame Street are wonderful.  Please don't ruin it for the next generation. Cookie Monster's lyrics are not particularly influential in the lives of children, rather, they are sentimental. 
We plead with you to revert to the original "C is for Cookie, that's good enough for me;"  it was definitely good enough for us.
Sincerely,
Brittany and Reed ______

Their humor contains some very serious truth.

For an explication of the Psychodynamic roots of Political Correctness from a point of view slightly different from and overlapping my own, take a look at this article by Professor Howard S. Schwartz of Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, Hysteria and Truth in the Politically Correct Organization: The Case of the Burkett Memo Debacle at CBS News.

Political correctness represents hysteria, a psychological dynamic that is inconsistent with and destructive toward organization. This is shown in the case of CBS News, as illustrated by the Burkett memo debacle. News organizations can do good journalism even though they are biased, as long as they operate under the assumption that there is an external world which their reporting can get wrong. Political correctness undermines that assumption, and in fact undermines the whole idea that there is an external world. In the politically correct organization, truth refers to correspondence with a fantasy, rather than correspondence with facts in an external world. Politically correct news organizations are not in the journalism business anymore. They are in the business of political correctness, which has become an end in its own right.

The Suicide Bomber, Narcissism, and the Ego Ideal: Part II

Yesterday I wrote about the young woman from Gaza who attempted to keep her hospital appointment in Israel and thank the Israelis for treating her burns, suffered in a kitchen fire, by blowing herself up and killing as many innocent people as possible. 

[Today, Roger Simon (coincidentally) was kind enough to post a sequence of pictures of the woman at the Israeli border crossing where her plans were discovered.] 

I suggested that her culture, by glorifying the suicide bomber had created a situation in which young people with less than the usual self esteem could easily adopt the identity as an idealized suicide bomber as a way to enhance their sense of themselves as a valuable member of society.

Today I want to draw attention to a second story from last week.  This is an excerpt from an interview with a Syrian historian and author Dr. Georgette 'Attiyya, translated by MEMRI TV:

Dr. Attiyya: The Palestinian woman's womb is a factory for the conflict; it produces fighting children. After this fighting child is produced, he is taught: "This is your land, this is your country, you will fight for it, stand on it, and die for it." Therefore, a very important connection exists between motherhood, land, and blood.

Keeping in mind that in Palestinian parlance, "fighting children" are those who kill other children and innocents, this suggests that the ego ideal of the young Palestinian is formed in a milieu that includes the glorification and idealization of the "martyr" who gives his or her life for his or her people. 

The Suicide Bomber, Narcissism, and the Ego Ideal: Part I

Two recent stories have received less air time than they deserve.  The stories together tell us something profound and profoundly troubling about our enemies.  I will address the first item today and the second tomorrow.

On Monday, a Gazan woman, Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, was caught attempting to cross into Israel to become a suicide bomber.  As reported in the newspaper Ha'aretz, Gaza woman seized en route to bombing hospital in Israel, the woman had been burned in a kitchen fire some months earlier and was receiving treatment at Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva, the major medical center in the Negev.

On Monday she was due for a checkup at the hospital. The Shin Bet said her handlers gave her the pants packed with explosives that morning, and instructed her to blow herself up in the hospital, in a "noisy, crowded place."

Realizing she had been discovered, Al-Biss apparently tried to blow herself up, but failed to detonate the bomb. She later removed the explosive device and sappers blew it up.

She was allowed to be interviewed on Israeli TV and made statements that are worth noting:

Sitting calmly across from an Israeli TV interviewer, the young woman with large brown eyes and curly dark hair pulled back in a short ponytail explained that she decided to carry out a suicide attack against Israel because of its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Clearly visible were large burn scars covering her neck and hands.

"My dream was to be a martyr," she said. "I believe in death."

She rejected the reporter's observation that Israel plans to pull out of Gaza and part of the West Bank. "You are still in settlements in the West Bank," she said, "and you're still in Khan Yunis [in Gaza], aren't you?"

In the TV interviews, she appeared confident and clear about her role as a suicide bomber. She said it had nothing to do with her disfigurement, which might make her less desirable as a bride. "Don't think that because of how I look I wanted to carry out an attack. ... Since I was a little girl I wanted to carry out an attack."

Her composure was eventually shaken when she began to realize she is now facing a very long prison sentence.  By the end of the article it becomes clear this is a rather suggestible young woman who, while not brain washed, had been primed from early in her life to see becoming a  suicide bomber as a way to become a highly esteemed person.

In my first post in a series on Narcissism, Malignant Narcissism, and Paranoia: Part I, I explained that part of what supports a person's self esteem is how closely he is able to approximate his "ego ideal".

Reality and Fantasy in Brain Research

Drudge linked to a brief article today on Yahoo news, Brain sees violent video games as real life -study, which framed the evidence in such a way as to obfuscate the distinction between reality and fantasy.

The brains of players of violent video games react as if the violence were real, a study has suggested.

Klaus Mathiak at the University of Aachen in Germany studied the brain patterns of 13 men aged 18 to 26 who, on average, played video games for two hours a day.

....

Mathiak found that as violence became imminent, the cognitive parts of the brain became active and that during a fight, emotional parts of the brain were shut down.

The pattern was the same as that seen in subjects who have had brain scans during other simulated violent situations.

(emphasis mine-SW)

While this is a brief recap, it is characteristic of the lazy manner in which reporters approach scientific studies.

One can suspect that the writer (of the original magazine article or of the Yahoo recap, it is impossible to say from this snippet) is opposed to violent entertainment on the grounds of increasing the risks of violence.  This, of course, fits into the well worn memes that include "guns are always bad", "war is not the answer", and "if we are nicer, our enemies will like us more."

The premise is that playing violent video games directly affects the brain of the players and predisposes them to violence. 

It suggests that video games are a "training for the brain to react with this pattern," Mathiak says.

The research was presented at a meeting in Canada and reported by New Scientist magazine.

Whether violent videos make people more aggressive though is hard to prove, the magazine noted. Studies have suggested players of violent games are in fact more aggressive but have left open the question of whether the games made them that way.

The article suggests that our brains cannot distinguish simulations from reality.  Since almost everyone can, in fact, distinguish the two states, there is an error at the base of the article that turns the outcome 180 degrees from what is presented.

In Psychoanalysis, we see patients 3 to 5 sessions a week; they lie on the couch in order to encourage their imagination to flourish and to allow them to slightly loosen their bonds with reality.  At times, in analysis, the patient can almost feel as if they are in a waking dream.  The past, their earliest relationships, their conflicts, become activated in an emotionally powerful and real-feeling way.  However, despite the fact that we are hovering on the boundary between reality and fantasy,  there is never any doubt about what is real and what is not. 

On extraordinarily rare occasions, a patient will have difficulty differentiating reality and fantasy and some can actually lose the ability to make the distinction.  When this failure of reality testing occurs, we recognize that our patient has become "psychotic within the transference." 

Since the study nowhere reports that the subjects lost reality testing and were never psychotic and unaware that what they were doing was a game, the idea that this could be in any way predictive of violent behavior "in reality" is ridiculous. 

Keep this in mind next time you read about how violent games and movies cause violence.