One of those days where there is too much to read, and all of it wounds either the psyche or the spirit, or one’s sense of safety. Bear with me, if you will; I find I’m battling some sort of virus, thingy, which does not help.
There are no conclusions I can draw, in any of these links, that you cannot draw yourself.
But, overriding all of it is a startlingly strong sense of evil, galloping our way, in battalions.
Let’s begin on the purely material: This is a shocking graph.
But no matter the reality, things are a success!.
It took a while for Bush to admit things were not going well in Iraq. How long do we give the Obama administration to make such an admission. On anything? His disengagement with his own generals is rather shocking, and his ability to gain “more co-operation in the world” seems not to be panning out. The climate woes on which he wishes to base his economy-strangling cap and trade boondoggle seem to based on untruths. The war he said we must win does not seem to be of much interest to him, and the “open door” he claims to have, seems closed to all but his dubious buddies.
But, at least he’ll bring home the Olympics.
Where does “evil” come into play, in all that? You wouldn’t think it does, would you?
And yet, when I read this piece, I completely understood what this therapist is saying, both as a victim who has trusted her gut for years, because victims learn to do so, and as a student:
M. Scott Peck so eloquently captures the consequences of evil in high places: “The evil create for those under their dominion a miniature sick society.”
We have a man who has been privileged with the greatest honor, the Presidency, and what does he do? Does he demonstrate an ounce of gratitude or humility?
No, he betrays us in the most profound way possible: by not protecting and defending us.
But I will share with you a surprising truth I learned after working in the child abuse field: severe neglect is even more traumatic than serious physical abuse (not sexual abuse, though). People can be mortally wounded by crimes of omission.
What worries me the most about Obama is this: the part of him that should want to shield us from harm seems chillingly absent.
The economy is tanking — Obama laughs. We are accumulating crippling debt — he and the other Democrats go on a spending spree. . . . Our allies have started to realize that Obama doesn’t care about them either. . . Obama does have sympathy for the devils, though, the Chavez’s and Castro’s of the world.
There are endless red flags, aren’t there? The covert government of antisocial Czars; the cozy ties to Bill Ayers, maybe George Soros. And who knows what else, because Obama’s private world has been hermetically sealed.
Read the whole thing, and ponder a while.
I know during Bush’s presidency, along with all the hate and assassination talk that the press and the Democrats never minded, every few years we would be treated to some psychologist’s assertion that Bush was mad, insecure, or whatever. And they’ve already decided that Sarah Palin is a psychopath, too. We don’t generally see those same psychologists offering diagnoses of Democrat presidents or candidates. I am not a psychologist, of course, but I have tried to write sympathetically (in a very limited way, since it’s beyond my scope) to the early childhood issues of Bill Clinton’s heartbreak and Barack Obama’s absent love.
Neoneocon, who does have the credentials, though, recently had a stab at Obama:
Obama is easily the most controlled president I’ve ever seen in terms of his personal style. Although supposedly cool, there is no looseness there, no moment when you think you see a glimpse into the true man in a relaxed state when he has let down his guard.
…Obama is in a class by himself in this regard; his control is more complete and therefore more eerie. Even gestures that might appear to be spontaneous (witness these) are, IMHO, carefully planned to appeal to a certain audience that “gets” it.
Some people are just naturally subdued, and I think that description fits Obama as well. But there’s much more than that going on with the demeanor of our current president. Anyone who attempts this complete a level of control is hiding something. In Obama’s case, I believe it is his essential far-Leftist self: who he is and what he means to do.
That’s the Obama mask he wears, and he cannot take it off without revealing more than he wishes us to know right now. Maybe some day.
We know that our early formation is reflected in our adult behaviors. When one ponders the abandoned and uprooted childhood of Obama, and how that is being reflected in his detached presidency, there is much to think about.
And it seems eerie, to me, that this week -with the Roman Polanski controversy- we are focusing on how childhood traumas play out in later lives. I know there is a bridge here, somehow, between both the weird disconnects between Campaign Obama and President Obama, and the weird disconnect between “compassionate” Hollywood and “Free Polanski” Hollywood. And that bridge, if a better mind than mine can make it, may explain a great deal about why we are where we are today, as a nation.
Perhaps because of my own background, my mind is not fully grasping what it needs to, but both the piece by Robin of Berkeley and this fearless and horrendous piece are clues, I know they are.
That girl is forever defined by that moment, as I have been defined by my own moment of terror and pain and horror. There is, for me, no place on this whole planet that is safe. I move farther and farther from the center of things. I find myself in hotel rooms or houses in remote places where nobody knows where I am, and very few even care.
I have been an alcoholic, a drug user, a sexual deviant and addict. I have tried with what heart I have left to be kind and generous and loving, and I have wrecked my life and hurt people I love. I have tried to be whole, to be a regular man inside a regular man’s skin, and I have failed miserably.
If you can stand reading any more about Roman Polanski and Hollywood Elitists, you can start with Patterico, wend your way through the pontifications of our betters and then pause to read this thoughtful admission:
Those who make their living by acknowledging and exploiting their own capacities for evil ought to be the most careful in preventing it from bleeding out of their work and into their lives; if only because, when they fail to do so, there are so many in high and low places willing to forsake both reason and basic human decency in order to absolve them of it.
There is a connection -can you help me make it- between the vociferous defense of Roman Polanski by the “artistic elite” and their unquestioning support of anything that is against America, against the very system that has given them wealth and power and privilege. And that, somehow, touches the pride and prejudice of this administration, too.
Perhaps I am completely wrong. I could be’ but something is tugging and nudging me, here; I cannot quite see it.
Simply misfiring synapses? But then, “by the prickling of my thumbs, something wicked, this way comes.”
And in the face of all that, I can honestly say that this stuff is unworthy of anything more than a dismissive, “oh, move along, tiresome, small creatures, move along.”
UPDATE: But on the other hand, where does it stop? And can you imagine if any President but Obama had appointed this fellow, the outcry we’d be hearing?