Computer Down Blues…

Light blogging due to computer difficulties. Obnoxious machine! Kept me from sharing all these goodies with you!

First up, Dr. Sanity, after having a little fun with the whole psychological drama of Blogger Playing Cards (shameless campaigning here) has settled into a long and thoughtful sort of diagnosis of what precisely is behind
Bush Derangement Syndrome. She’s being very serious, here, bringing her training and insight to bear on the matter, and she makes some startling observations and comes to interesting conclusions:

One way you can usually tell that an individual is using displacement is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe–even thought that is not the case.

This explains the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascists by so many governments and around the world. It explains why there is more emphasis on protecting the “rights” of terrorists, rather than holding them accountable for their actions (which, by the way are also Bush’s fault–not theirs). Our soldiers in Iraq are being killed because of Bush–not because of terrorist activity. Terrorist activity itself is blamed on Bush no matter where it occurs.

She is dead serious in her writing, and you’ll really want to read the whole thing. I have for the longest time believed that Bush Derangement Syndrome was rooted in fear, and also in a resentment – a whole generation that has spent a lifetime indulging itself in “what shall I wear, where shall I vacation” inanity is now being forced to deal with an ugly reality that flies in the face of all of its kumbay-ing, and they resent the intrusion, like hell. They liked when Clinton ignored terrorism, because it meant they could ignore it, too. This mean president Bush won’t let them ignore it.

Still on Bush, dissectleft has an interesting blurb by David Limbaugh on The Manifesto of Lies:

Nazi and Communist propagandists were on to something in teaching that if you repeat a lie — even an outrageous one — often enough people will begin to believe it.

This principle holds true even if you are guilty of precisely the same thing as those you accuse (talking up Saddam’s WMDs) and your complicity is conclusively demonstrated on audiotape and videotape.

When your obvious duplicity in this affair is illuminated by reference to the uncontroverted fact that when you made similar claims about Saddam’s WMDs you had access to the same intelligence as the administration, you simply say the president pressured the intelligence community to doctor the data.

It’s a must read.

STILL on the subject of President Bush and his “lies” Bernard Higgins says President Bush is an Honest Man of High Personal Integrity and he takes some issue with a recent poll:

To read the poll this morning, one would think that 6 in 10 Americans are willing to follow the bell sheep of the Democratic Party — Edward M. Kennedy — into the future, paragon of personal character and integrity that he is. To read the poll this morning, one would think 6 in 10 Americans regret that but for Ohio, the resolute, decisive, combat-hardened, consumate legislator, John F. Kerry, would be leading us now. Indeed, to read the poll this morning, one would think 6 in 10 Americans regret that but for Florida and the United States Supreme Court, the mentally-stable, low-key, inventor of the Internet (and inspiration for the poignant movie, “Love Story”) would have kept us out of Iraq and ushered the United States into an era of sublime socialism.

Again, you’ll want to read it all. I read that poll too and the more I read these strange polls, which poll more Democrats than Republicans in order to get their numbers, I find myself wondering if it is possible that so many GOP’ers now “hate” the president. I don’t believe it. I think the way questions are asked is an interesting componant of any poll. I know some GOPer’s who completely support the war in Iraq, but if you ask them just the right question, just the right way, their answer will be tallied as “disapproving…” mostly because they think we should be much more aggressive.

I’m filing this under “Bush Good” because I’m tired of all the “Bush Bad” nonsense, myself.