In the past century, weren't both Naziism and Communism based around conspiracy theories hyped in the paranoid style?
yes, but those theories did not originate in the U.S. or in U.S. politics.
Boy, are you right on.
I think what really pushed the left over the edge was the Floridation of the 2000 election.
How appropriate! I should title Part I "From Fluoridation to Floridation". 
Great post!
I recall reading Lilly's take on sensory deprivation leading to altered states of consiousness.
There is clearly an 'sensory deprivation' as the left attempts to usurp and undermine reality, as they attempt to redefine the world around them, all the while blocking out daylight.
You are a complete asshole. How dare you use your psychobabble to denigrate those on the left who are clearly concerned with freedom more than you will ever be. Who do you think you are to say these things about them. You are an idiot.
To me, understanding "why" is the most important part of analyzing our government, politics, and society. Journalists rarely address that issue in any meaningful way, but blogs do.
What a terrific essay.
x- who do I have to be? Are there some minimal criteria that must be fulfilled to have that kind of moral authority? Please refer me to the site that lists them so I can begin to actively ignore them.
(Types words "Moral Authority" on piece of paper, hands it to Doc.)
There ya go, Doc. Far as I'm concerned, you've got a lot more moral authority now than 99% of the bloviating anonymous posters who drop troll feces on sites they take personally.
J.
Excellent. Thank you.
Dear Dr.Santy,
Timely back-up to the paranoid style is supplied by analysis of the
NYT's article on Google refusing to
participate in request by the US goverment to only help them design a lawful system to track kiddie porn, but the NYT hides Google's OK of
China's censorship. A $ is a $!
"The paranoid flavor of the article resembles a Times article from last year on some liberal librarians in Connecticut up in arms over the Patriot Act, and another from 2004, headlined “Sensing the Eyes of Big Brother, and Pushing Back.”
Followed by the rejection of facts that don't fit their beliefs. USA bad -
Google GOOD - China - GOOD TOO?
"By contrast, a genuinely troubling story about Google’s attempt to cope with the Chinese government’s control of the Internet is buried on Page 3 of today’s business section and benignly headlined “Version of Google in China Won't Offer E-Mail or Blogs.” The AP headline is tougher: “Google Agrees to Censor Results in China.”
TimesWatch Tracker: Our Latest Analysis
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
NYT Gags on U.S.’s Google Request
Wednesday’s Page A1 story by Katie Hafner on Google’s refusal to turn over to the Justice Department its records on users’ search queries is headlined “After Subpoenas, Internet Searches Give Some Pause,” and looks far and wide for disturbed googlers.
“Kathryn Hanson, a former telecommunications engineer who lives in Oakland, Calif., was looking at BBC News online last week when she came across an item about a British politician who had resigned over a reported affair with a ‘rent boy.’ It was the first time Ms. Hanson had seen the term, so, in search of a definition, she typed it into Google. As Ms. Hanson scrolled through the results, she saw that several of the sites were available only to people over 18. She suddenly had a frightening thought. Would Google have to inform the government that she was looking for a rent boy -- a young male prostitute? Ms. Hanson, 45, immediately told her boyfriend what she had done. ‘I told him I'd Googled “rent boy,” just in case I got whisked off to some Navy prison in the dead of night,’ she said.”
The paranoid flavor of the article resembles a Times article from last year on some liberal librarians in Connecticut up in arms over the Patriot Act, and another from 2004, headlined “Sensing the Eyes of Big Brother, and Pushing Back.”
Hafner doesn’t go into detail as to why the government wants the search information, only saying the request was “part of the [Justice Department’s] effort to uphold an online pornography law.”
As columnist Jonah Goldberg explains at National Review Online:
“The Department of Justice is in a lawsuit with the ACLU over the Child Online Protection Act, which is designed to help prevent kids from being exposed to online porn. The law ran afoul of the First Amendment, according to a lower court, and the Supreme Court asked for additional information pending its final decision on the matter. The Department of Justice asked Google, as well as MSN, Yahoo!, and Time Warner (AOL's parent), to provide data on their search engines from a one-week period….No personal information was asked for and none has been given. Everyone but Google complied, because there's really no reason not to. Google, however, sees itself in a very idealistic light and has decided to stand on principle against the government, prompting huzzahs from all the predictable sources.”
Hafner writes: “The government and the cooperating companies say the search queries cannot be traced to their source, and therefore no personal information about users is being given up. But the government's move is one of several recent episodes that have caused some people to think twice about the information they type into a search engine, or the opinions they express in an e-mail message.
“The government has been more aggressive recently in its efforts to obtain data on Internet activity, invoking the fight against terrorism and the prosecution of online crime. A surveillance program in which the National Security Agency intercepted certain international phone calls and e-mail in the United States without court-approved warrants prompted an outcry among civil libertarians. And under the antiterrorism USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has demanded records on library patrons' Internet use.
“Those actions have put some Internet users on edge, as they confront the complications and contradictions of online life.”
Hafner begins as she ends, with paranoia: “[Jim] Kowats, the television producer, shares that fear. ‘Where does it stop?’ he said. ‘What about file sharing? Scalping tickets? Or traveling to Cuba? What if you look up abortion? Who says you can't look up those things? What are the limits? It's the little chipping away. It's a slippery slope.’”
By contrast, a genuinely troubling story about Google’s attempt to cope with the Chinese government’s control of the Internet is buried on Page 3 of today’s business section and benignly headlined “Version of Google in China Won't Offer E-Mail or Blogs.” The AP headline is tougher: “Google Agrees to Censor Results in China.”
TimesWatch Tracker: Our Latest Analysis
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Thus it is not so hard to understand that those who once championed the oppressed and encouraged them to be free and partake of all aspects of American society;
What the hell, here?
Are you a liar or are you just that stupid?
The left didn't encourage anyone. They enacted a confiscatory program of taxation, stole from the productive, and doled it out to the 'so-called' oppresessed.
It's kind of like you're a continuous apologist for the left.
The left being the scumbags of the twentieth cenury, who when they could no longer confiscate, they killed, in rather large quantities.
Wake the fuck up, will you?
anonymous 4:01 we prefer evidence to name calling here, even from the people on "our side." In fact, after a few freebies and rants, we expect it more from our own side. Shape up, brother.
Interesting that the image of being the rescuer and defender plays so dominantly on the left. There is this need to be the rescuing knight. Therefore, the fair damsel must be helpless, and the dragon must be real. That the fair damsel(s) might have decided to rescue themselves, or that the dragon might have moved out years ago is too much to bear.
anonymous 4:01 if you don't watch your language you will be banned.
AVI - I think at the moment we have a situation in which the dragon is real and he eats the fair damsel because the knight belongs to PETA...
x - Who has more freedom: an American living under the Patriot Act, a Muslim living under Sharia, or a corpse buried under a ruined skyscraper?
Just asking...
This the first time I've ever seen Dr. Sanity accused of being an "apologist for the left". It just goes to show that no matter how far to the right your political views are, there will always be someone out there who thinks you're a bleeding heart liberal.
x:
"You are a complete asshole."
No she's not...she's a Porsche 911.
What sports car are YOU, ace?
Ahh...Birkenstocks.
Zoom-zoom!
It strikes me that leftoids look out at the big bad world from under the bed and worry that someone "in government" is going to come after them, personally, in the small hours of the night, because they, uh, Googled something. I think we can posit two unassailable (cause I say so) truths:
1. How incredibly egotistical. Don't you folks understand just how INSIGNIFICANT you are. Nobody cares what you say or do. Get over it.
2. The hue and cry about "rights" is just a pathetic smoke screen. It's already been established that lefties are immune to rational argument. Stop trying to make us believe that you object to blah-blah on principle when you consistently demonstrably an inability to intellectually comprehend the meaning of the word. The Left is moribund and grows tiresome in its frantic death throes. Find something useful to occupy your time, Pookie.
Excellent post and I believe a relevant diagnosis. I'll be anxious to hear the 'treatment'. One of the major problems I see from the left is failure to accept facts. If a fact or predominately the majority of facts concerning any situation do not support their already pre-ordained conclusion, it is as if the fact itself does not exist. More simply stated, the paranoid delusional left does not learn! They are so arrogant they cannot even consider they may be wrong. That is why the vitriol (see x) just gets worse and worse. They can't be wrong, therefore 'you people' obviously aren't hearing them, so like an ignored 5 year old they just shout louder, and in words ‘you people’ can ‘understand’. I’ll look forward to the treatment phase!
This give me a hint that the LEFT and their "Society for Personality and Social Psychology" cannot show that their arguments/policies are based on facts - so next best thing is to "prove" that we are also irrational.
Yesterday JustOneMinute brought a NYT
"SCIENCE" article up in this post:
I excerpt:
January 24, 2006
Partisans - Not Thinking
The NY Times answers your questions about Atrios, Team Powerline, and, dare I say it, yours truly:
Liberals and conservatives can become equally bug-eyed and irrational when talking politics, especially when they are on the defensive.
Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.
I can't tell you how many flares of pleasure I enjoyed during the last campaign; was it good for you, too?
In 2004, the researchers recruited 30 adult men who described themselves as committed Republicans or Democrats. The men, half of them supporters of President Bush and the other half backers of Senator John Kerry, earned $50 to sit in an M.R.I. machine and consider several statements in quick succession. The first was a quote attributed to one of the two candidates: either a remark by Mr. Bush in support of Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron chief, before he was indicted, or a statement by Mr. Kerry that Social Security should be overhauled. Moments later, the participants read a remark that showed the candidate reversing his position. The quotes were doctored for maximum effect but presented as factual.
"Doctored for maximum effect" - was Maureen Dowd paid for her participation?
Posted by Tom Maguire on January 24, 2006 | Permalink
ME: Hope you will read the NYT article
and notice their is no link to the study - only link is to Kenneth Lay.
Very cute!
This excerpt from LiveScience:
Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 24 January 2006
10:03 am ET
Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows. And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view. Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.The results were announced today."We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Bias on both sides
Click here: Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds
Finish the read at:
http://www.livescience.com/
other...60124_political
Can't wait for this presentation of findings:
."The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology"
Just ask yourself where you think your
brain "would light up" if told
"The World is Flat" - I think my emotional part would flash "You're an
idiot". Then when told the "world is
round" same emotional response would be "glad you finally got it".
The "doctored" quotes they used have
nothing to do with reasoning just as
my example above. Unless you lived in the 15th century.
Dear Doc -- Please compose a Part 3 discussing paranoia as expressed in Islamist jihad -- perceived loss of power, influence, prestige, respect/honor, and the need to turn inward to subjugate women and non-Islamist Muslims, while struggling to prove superiority in the non-Muslim world.
Anonymous 4:01: proof that irrationality is not confined to the delusional Left. There are plenty of crazoids on the right; the difference is that on our side of the divide, folks like the Assistant Village Idiot exert polite pressure on the offender to shape up, whereas Kos and company lionize the spluttering and demented.
See this post for some discussion of those issues.
I've noticed alot of narcissistic projection on this site.
Two things:
1. What is the magic word/statement that can be used to start the paranoiac responding validly to truth. I said start, I know it would take a while for mental health to be achieved.
2. There is real anecdotal evidence that the left's paranoiac delusions taking centre stage in the media are affecting vulnerable young people's attitudes in the benighted nations of the world. What can I do to significantly harm the image of the NYT/Newsweek et al when they perpetuate their fallacious scandals?
There is no magic word. You can lead someone to insight but you can't make him (or her) think.
I guess my question is, how do you 'diagnose' an entire group of people (and we get it already; you don't have to say "liberal left" every time you refer to those of us who actually take the Bill of Rights seriously) without examining them first? isn't this a Frist-like violation of your medical code of ethics?
and please don't attempt to blame only "paranoia" from "the left" for leading to "severe breaks in the social fabric". I thought your hero Shrub was supposed to be "a uniter, not a divider". Hard to unite anyone when you pretend that 49% is a "mandate" and tell the Dems that it's your way or the highway on just about every issue.....
Pat - take a look at your own post.
It's hard to be a 'uniter' when the other side constantly belittles your efforts. You call him 'shrub' - doesn't it just give you a warm feeling to do that? To be petty and dismissive?
What's he supposed to do to unite the country in the face of an attitude like yours? No matter what he might do, it's the wrong thing. He reaches out a hand, you slap it. He tries to build a bridge, you try to destroy it as fast as he can build it. How's he supposed to work against an attitude like that?
J.
Pat,
I believe the latest Osama bin laden tape pretty much cleared up the 'divisive' culprits. GWB has made unprecedented efforts to reach out to the Democrat party, only to have it all thrown against him instead of any serious collaboration. The OBL tape clearly was designed to 'divide' the will of the American people and coalition forces, and all he did was simply echo the top 5 DNC talking points! He didn't really emphasize his religious beliefs or goals, or stress his own reasoning as he has on much earlier occasions. He simple parroted the Democrats talking points including poll numbers! Now who is really 'dividing' America? Think about it.
Hmm, the interesting thing about people like pat is Bush was elected the first time with 48% of the vote and in 2004 he got 51.3% and still is not a mandate but Clinton had 43% and that was a mandate to nationalize health care. Plus, he(Clinton) was re elected with 49% of the vote. Nothing signals death for a political movement when they start sounding like the enemies of this country.
> You are an idiot.
ANOTHER intellectual giant rears his pointy head...
Or is that heads his pointy rear?
Something like that.
> I've noticed alot of narcissistic projection on this site.
Feel free to actually provide evidence of said claim... or were you just a Poo-Flinging Troll?
Is that a silly question?
Of course it is.
We know you're a PFT.
> and we get it already; you don't have to say "liberal left" every time you refer to those of us who actually take the Bill of Rights seriously
Uhhh, Pat, how incensed were you when Bill Clinton started doing this, with far less provocation than 3 billion dollars and 3000 lives lost?
Do you have anything resembling proof? (*I* do. I was writing against Echelon in the late 90s on Declan McCullough's PoliTech ML)
Did *you* notice, like me, the big fanfare on the 200th anniversary of the DoI, in 1976, the lesser but still significant fanfare on the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, in 1989... and the total lack of anything whatsoever in 1991, the 200th anniversary of the BoR?
...or did you just this moment become aware of that?
How often do you speak out against PC Speech codes on College campuses? How often do you argue with lefties who attempt to shout down speakers they don't like, such as Ann Coulter?
Do you really give a rat's rectal opening about the BoR, or is it just something you can use at the moment to attack Bush?
I suspect I know the answer to that last question. Feel free to amaze me by showing evidence that I am wrong...
P.S., don't bother accusing me of being some shill for The Right. I've been a libertarian for far longer than most. I'd be happy to welcome you to the ranks of people who support the BoR enthusiastically, but I seriously doubt if you do. I think you're one more partisan hack who thinks it's a convenient tool to use to whine about the current administrations' admittedly less than sparkling record in that regard, but will abandon it the moment it comes into conflict with something you support...
BTW, this site, while somewhat technical, may well be of interest to some here -- I would certainly recommend you provide it to any techie friends and/or keep a copy, as it may well be of interest sooner or later:
How to Bypass Internet Censorship
In particular, this might seem of interest.
Nice analysis Doc. I think we are fortunate as a country that the majority realizes the paranoid nature of the left these days, and votes right. I usually like to see us split power between the branches, but not these days. I think many of my countrymen feel the same.
Now to read part 2.
IN response:
J. Lawson: As far as my shorthand use of "Shrub" goes, I suppose I could have used HIS type of language and referred to him as a "major league a**hole". And I did support going into Afghanistan---I just wish he had finished the job, instead of shifting back to his pre-inaugaration goal of invading a country with no connection to 9/11 but plenty of oil.
Mark: please explain how Mr. Bush's record on judicial nominees so far even remotely resembles "reaching out to Democrats", much less "unprecedented".
Mr. Sterling:how much of the vote do you think Mr. Bush would have received had a viable third-party candidate been in the mix drawing 19% of the vote, as Clinton had to face both times?
Finally, "Oh Blutige Holle":
1) you appear to be on quite the ego trip.
2) from the timing of your posts above, either you work odd hours or you seriously need some hobbies.
3) as an attorney, I can assure you that your unsubstantiated self-aggrandizations do not qualify as "proof" of any sort.
4) not that I give a "rat's rectal opening" about persuading the likes of you that I am serious about the Bill of Rights, but yes, I was against Echelon, I believe the 2nd Amendment is as important as the other nine, and I have argued with persons on all points of the political spectrum about the absolute freedom of speech (short of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), including letting deranged sluts like Ann Coulter rant away to anyone who'll have her. I apologize for not singlehandedly organizing a national celebration of the 200th anniversary of Virginia and Vermont's passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791; I was fresh out of school. I'm sure you would have done so but were far too busy evangelizing to the world on "Declan McCullough's PoliTech ML".
Get over yourself.
Do a little research pat,
For Judge Roberts, Bush sought the advice of 75 out of 100 Senators from both sides of the aisle, an unprecedented effort. Really didn't make any difference to you or the left, did it? He let Ted Kennedy gut the No child left behind act, but still gave him credit (without mentioning the radical changes that made the act much less effective). My statements are generally verifiable. Are yours?
Mark, please explain how Ted Kennedy, from the minority party, managed to "gut" the No Child Left Behind Act. It is Bush who has consistently requested less than full funding for it (from a compliant GOP congress), and who is interested solely in the "testing" portion of it.
Which is, of course, why we now have lawsuits from several states complaining that NCLB is nothing more than an unfunded federal mandate to the states.
as far as Roberts goes, he was the stealthiest SC candidate out of a slate of ultra-conservatives (and whatever consulting Bush did with Dems, which was far more perfunctory than you make it sound, was when Roberts was being nominated to be an associate justice, not the Chief).
How much advice or consent did Bush seek from the Dems on Owen (I'm from Texas, she's an embarrassment), Pryor, Pickering, Brown, etc., whose principal qualifications seem to be that they will be reliable administration votes????
And where was your concern over the proper role of the Senate in voting on judges when the GOP was holding up several dozen of Clinton's judicial nominees, @70 of whom never even got out of committee?
Commenting by HaloScan.com
