ShrinkWrapped

"United 93"

Last night Mrs. ShrinkWrapped and I saw "United 93."  It was a very intense, often harrowing, experience.  Since we knew the outcome from the start, the tension came from the filmmakers ability to induce an effortless suspension of disbelief; you felt that you were int he airport, in the air traffic control centers, inside the plane.  The people, while shown with minimal character development (the film proceeds in "real time") were recognizable human beings facing unprecedented situations.  It took me several minutes to catch my breath when it ended, yet ultimately, it was a positive and very optimistic evening.  The movie also helped me understand something that I have written about many times, yet grasped in a much more visceral way while watching a movie that had the feel of a documentary.

I have lived in the New York City suburbs for most of my life.  I grew up in a middle class neighborhood at a time when anti-social behavior was still ground for school suspension and expulsion.  Violence and hate were always kept at a distance.  I suspect a great many of my contemporaries were similarly insulated from the hatreds that fester in some of the darker places. 

From time to time I witnessed violence; you do not spend four years working around Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital without seeing the occasional violent, agitated, psychotic patient.  In most such situations, the Hospital Police were available to ensure that the dangers were minimized.  Within the confines of a Psychiatric ward, rage was not uncommon, but was always contained and containable.  Later, when most of my professional time was spent within a consultation room, it became even more unusual to see violent emotions expressed in any other than verbal terms. 

The Council Has Spoken!

Once a week the Watchers Council selects the best posts from the previous week to bring to your attention.  The quality of the posting is always impressive and this week is no exception.  Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse  has the winning post, DEFEND DISSENT: PUNISH THE LEAKERS, in which he explains with more patience than I could muster, the difference between principled dissent and unprincipled political opportunism.  In second place was a tie between The Glittering Eye, who is Tired, and my post in which I undertake the task of Defining Terms: The Left.

Among the non-Council posts, the winning entry was The McCarthy File from In From the Cold, a "must read" for anyone who wants to understand the struggle between the leakers at the CIA and the Administration.  In second place Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch shows how to do a responsible critique of our present course in The Tragedy of George W. Bush; would that all criticisms were done so well.

Finally, all the nominated posts can be found at the Watcher of Weasels and all are particularly rewarding.

A Visit to the Left

In my daily blog roll, I try to sample sites from the left and the right (though I clearly tend to spend more time on the right/conservative side of the blogosphere. As has been discussed in my recent posts and in the comments, there is a clear tendency on both sides to set up straw man arguments, impute them to the other side, and skewer them. Usually, this ends up making the poster look like a mirror image of the fantasies he is attacking. I would like to do something different today. Glenn Greenwald is osmeone whose blog I read from time to time.  He often writes passionatley and entertainingly, but when he criticizes his opponents, he tends to go overboard.  Rather than "Fisk" a post by self-described liberal Glenn Greenwald, I would like to take a slightly different tack.

Yesterday, Glenn purported to explore the Anatomy of the "thought" process of Bush defenders:

As much as anything else, Bush defenders are characterized by an increasingly absolutist refusal to recognize any facts which conflict with their political desires, and conversely, by a borderline-religious embrace of any assertions which bolster those desires. It's a world-view which conflates desire with reality, disregards all facts and evidence that conflict with the decreed beliefs, and faithfully embraces any assertions and fantasies, no matter how baseless and flagrantly false, provided that they bolster the mythology.

Fair enough and worth considering; people with deeply felt political positions tend to filter the news and accept the data that confirms their preconceived notions. That is not a new finding and it has been confirmed by Experimental Psychologists as well as in the more narrow confines of the Psychoanalytic setting. Unfortunately, since this tends to operate on an unconscious level, we often do not recognize when we do the same thing.

Defining Terms: An Interregnum

[Update at the end]

When I offered my definition of "The Left" a number of Commenters made some very trenchant criticisms and suggestions.   The entire discussion has been educational for me and leads me to some tentative conclusions which I will present before I try to define "The Right" in a future post.

A number of people (including, especially, Mrs. ShrinkWrapped) pointed out, in various different ways, that our labels for people tend to be much too restrictive to do justice to the depth and complexity of people's political thinking.  This is unquestionably true.  Ideally, whenever discussing an issue that is in the public square, we should define exactly what we think the position of our opponents consists of and work from that, without the shorthand of labels, which too often are misleading, incomplete, and too easily lead to the replacement of rational and engaged disagreement with straw man arguments.

At the same time, this can become rather cumbersome.  If we are discussing the difficulty of combating Islamic fascism, it is useful to have a shorthand which encompasses those who tend to take positions that make effective prosecution of the war more difficult.  (Please note a caveat; I am talking about those who think we should not be at war, or are prosecuting the war too vigorously, or have taken too much power to the executive branch.  All those issues have been argued ad infinitum and will continue to be argued and that is not my interest here.)  Many, perhaps most, of those people identify themselves as "liberals" (a term that often appears to be used interchangeably with "leftists") and present themselves as anti-war.  There is a line between those who criticize the conduct of the war, or even criticize the decision to go to war in Iraq, as ineffective and counter-productive, and those who seem to actively prefer that America (and the Iraqi people) suffer, as long as it injures George Bush, but this line is easily blurred.  Additionally, the decision to go to war was fought and decided during the 2004 elections; those who oppose the war would seem to me to have the burden of showing some new evidence for their positions rather than continually recycling old arguments and canards.  When they fail to make the rudimentary effort to construct convincing arguments, it suggests they are either on the Far Left or a more ignoble species of political opportunists who value their own short term political success over the long term good of the country.

Which leads to another criticism raised in the comments.

Drugs, Sex, and Rock & Roll ... and Suicidality ... continued

It is very hard for people growing up today to appreciate the extent to which the 1960's were steeped in an ethos which celebrated drug use as a rebellious act of liberation.

The Baby Boomer generation that came of age in the legendary 1960's was a unique generation in more ways than one.  It was the first generation in human history that grew up relatively insulated from the great scourges of mankind, the Four Horsemen of Pestilence, Famine, War, and (early) Death.  At the same time, the widely proclaimed "death of God" left many with little spiritual nourishment.  By the mid to late 60's, the prevailing mantras had become "if it feels good, do it" and "turn on, tune in , and drop out".  Many followed those prescriptions. 

At Woodstock, the mythical apotheosis of the 60's zeitgeist, peace and love flowered in a haze of marijuana smoke and hallucinogens; warnings from the stage to stay away from the brown acid, along with the obligatory non-judgmental addendum that if you wanted to take it anyway, go ahead, it was your own trip, were interspersed with the musical acts, many of which celebrated drug use and intoxication as routes to greater inner knowledge and goodness.  Change the world by getting high.

Not surprisingly, a million or two young people getting high did very little to usher in the Age of Aquarius and many became disillusioned with the counter-culture and took to more traditional methods of changing the world.   Those who remained usually had their own, more personal reasons, for seeking salvation in intoxication.   One person whose life and death was perhaps emblematic of the times was Gram Parsons, said by many to be the originator of the genre of music known as Country-Rock, or in his terms, "Cosmic American Music". 

Defining Terms: The Left

My post yesterday was linked on Salon.com and attracted a fair number of new readers, many of whom objected to various parts of the discussion.  I am always pleased to have new readers, and always read every comment, with the expectation and hope that I can learn something, even from the most critical comments.  It seems to me that there are two particular aspects of our discourse that deserve further comment and clarification.

First of all, a number of commenters objected to my statement that "The left has always been anti-American" and several cited examples of people on the left who support our military and support our country.  [I wonder if I had written "much of the left has always been anti-American" (a more accurate statement) whether that would have made any difference to the commenters.]  There are two problems with my statement and the responses to it.  The first problem is that almost no one has been able to adequately define what Left means in ways that are agreed upon by most people involved in the debate.  Secondly, those who accuse me of generalizing and making artificial distinctions tend to do the very same thing themselves, and there is a good reason they do so. 

I have written on a number of occasions about the way our minds and brains are organized which enhances distinctions between, at the lowest level, "self" and "other", and at higher levels between "us" and "them".  (See here for an example.) Binary distinctions are a basic feature of our nervous system and it takes a significant cognitive effort to parse finer distinctions.  When I use the term Left I am making a binary distinction between a certain group on one extreme of our political divide (a group I believe has an out-sized influence in the Democratic party) and the rest of "Us."  A person who objects that they are on the Left and are not at all anti-American may not be speaking of the same Left I am, but they are making a similar binary distinction.  Of necessity, people do not, and can not, define all our terms every time they write a post or an article; it would make discussion impossible, yet the absence of agreement on basic terms also damages discourse.

I have tried on several occasions to come up with a working definition of Left and its relative, Liberal, and have somewhat facetiously arrived at the following:

Any position espoused by the New York Times is liberal; any position espoused by Michael Moore (or Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, et al) is left. 

I think the term deserves a more nuanced definition and will try to present one.

"The Military Scares Me"

Glenn Reynolds links to a story today about A BIG MARCH IN KNOXVILLE. 

Up to 20,000 people turned out Saturday for a parade to welcome home the National Guard's 278th Regimental Combat Team, providing a big-city atmosphere powered by small-town values.

As pleased as I was to see such support for our troops upon their return from Iraq, I was more struck by a significant discontinuity that is too rarely emphasized but that lies at the core of many of our current cultural conflicts.

First, allow me to set the scene.  Last week, my Oldest Son came home on leave after finally finishing his training as an Air Force linguist.  He volunteered to help do some recruiting in the area for the military and on Tuesday met with the local recruiter, who told him that, to no one's surprise, this is a particularly difficult area in which to recruit.  He told Oldest Son that most high schools are overtly hostile to military recruiters and it requires significant intestinal fortitude to walk into some of the schools in uniform.

As if to confirm this contention, this morning, on NPR, I heard a report that a group of High School students from the area has gone to court to prevent the military from having access to their high school records, especially test scores, GPA, and other salient data.  I have not yet found a link to the story, however.

Do They Really Believe What They Say?

This morning I watched Fox News Sunday and was struck by several items that gave me pause to wonder if the Democrats really believe some of the things they say?  In the introduction, Chris Wallace suggested that the formation of a new government in Iraq, the new tape from Osama bin Laden, the firing of Mary McCarthy for leaking classified information from her post in the CIA, and rising gas prices were the major stories of the day.  He began by interviewing Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R) Michigan, the chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, and Congresswoman Jane Harman, (D) California, the ranking Democrat on the committee.

I expect to hear various Republican and Democratic talking points on the all the Sunday news shows, and often skip the intitial guests since their views are usually pretty predictable, but with so much going on and the guests being involved in Intelligence work, I thought it might be interesting.

Chris Wallace first asked about the Osama bin Laden tape and directed his opening question to Rep. Hoekstra.  He responded that the tape was part of al Qaeda's very carefully designed information campaign, directed toward winning the hearts and minds of Moderate Islam.  He mentioned that he has reviewed many of their web sites and ids impressed with their "use of the right words, instantaneous response.... The quality of (their) message is quite good."  (My quotes are courtesy of the magic of DVR, which allowed me to transcribe some comments.)

This struck me as a reasonable and thoughtful response, which still left room for someone in the opposition to respond.

Unfortunately, Rep. Harman chose to start her response with a particularly unhelpful non-sequitor:

The Council Has Spoken!

This week the Watchers Council has determined the winning post to be an illuminating effort by Rhymes With Right, who shows what can happen when the thought disorder known as Political Correctness intersects with true racism, in Arrogant District Refuses To Protect White Students.  In second place was a commentary on the way in which some people nurture their hatred, Hate Central, by the Sundries Shack.

Among the non-Council Posts, Wolfgang Bruno wins by asking an important question, Do We Need Religion? Part 1.  In second place was Chester's magnificent compendium, Iran Extravaganza Post.

As usual, all the nominees can be found at The Watcher of Weasels and all will reward your time and effort.

Drugs, Sex, and Rock & Roll ... and Suicidality

The baby boomer generation which is now firmly into their late middle age, were famous for aspiring to a life spent dedicated to Drugs, Sex, and Rock & Roll.  As with all generalizations, this is an oversimplification, but there is enough of a germ of truth to the characterization to offer some perspective on the current status of the age cohort.  This article is from the Psychiatric Times, reported by  Richard A. Sherer:

Drug Abuse Hitting Middle-aged More Than Gen-Xers

America appears to be winning its war on substance abuse. However, some critics are concerned that we may be losing—or not even recognizing—a broader front in the war. Drug abusers today are more likely to be in their mid-30s to mid-50s or 60s. The consequences include increased drugrelated deaths and increased crime rates and arrests in the adult population.

The article goes on to document the changing demographics of drug use, drug related crime, and drug related medical issues, with a clear skew toward the baby boomers.  Why should this age group be more involved in drug use?  Drug use has always tended to be a young person's vice; old addicts were always unusual.  Most drug addicts either stopped using by their mid-30's or ended up incarcerated or dead, so addiction has always tended to be more common in the young.

Among the post-war generation, several factors came into play that tended to enhance the narcissistic vulnerability and pathology of many who grew up at that time.  Drug use became an integral part of their experience of themselves and has remained a source of gratification for many.

There are two primary ways for parents to enhance the narcissistic pathology of their children.