THE PSYCHOLOGIST : Details please Hillary

Details please Hillary

Thanks to Reuters - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton would be "fully engaged and involved" in the Middle East as U.S. president and would maintain a full-time presence there to spur the peace process, the New York senator told Reuters. "I believe that it's important for the United States to maintain an active and involved role," she said in an interview on Sunday. "I think one of the reasons why we are seeing a very dangerous situation there now is because the Bush administration backed off from staying involved and, where they were involved, much of their advice and proposals were counterproductive."

"Once we get back to a president who is fully engaged and involved and doesn't walk away or impose unworkable conditions, we will, you know, have a much better idea about what is part of bringing the parties to some resolution," she said. Asked whether she would be "fully engaged and involved," Clinton said, "Yes." President Clinton's 2000 effort to broker a peace agreement ended in failure and a violent Palestinian uprising ensued. Foreign policy analysts and Arab officials have often criticized Bush for what they regard as his neglect of the conflict and his failure to empower a special envoy to focus on the issue as Dennis Ross did under President Clinton.

I did notice that Hillary hasn't ruled out sending Bill to do this, I wouldn't either, in case he takes an unhealthy interest in one of the interns. Folks, I don't know if Reuters have cleverly disguised it, but I ain't seeing much evidence of any detail on this new policy of "fully engaged and involved". On the one hand they're crowing that Bush is a loser because he's not "fully engaged and involved" in the Middle East and yet under Clinton there was some special envoy, who I'm assuming was "fully engaged and involved", but still achieved nothing. Heck if nothing else, there hasn't been a violent uprising since Dubya's useless roadmap, well if you ignore the couple of thousand rockets being sent over into Israel by the poor-as-mosque-mice pacifist Palis that is.

Besides I don't know if anyone noticed, but Dubya is president of the United States, he is supposed to be "fully engaged and involved" first and foremost in the United States not the Middle East. Oh and he seems quite "engaged" over in Iraq and Afghanistan, they don't want him more involved do they. But I don't blame Hillary for forgetting that, the MSM haven't been all that big on either lately, since it's not going as bad as they hoped. Back to this "fully engaged and involved", don't worry lefties, she doesn't mean that she'll send more troops to Iraq or something, so rest assured you will get your new Vietnam, you'll get to screw over the Iraqis, humiliate America and even though the previous scumbag was executed to your great sadness, new ones will take his place and resume the killings.

What she means is that since the last time a special envoy was "fully engaged and involved" and achieved pretty much nothing or in other words, failed, that's what she'll be trying again. If you thought this might actually work because this special envoy would be "fully engaged and involved", meaning they'll be living there in the Middle East, sorry to disappoint again, this is after all the Middle East and you can hardly expect a liberal to 'hold the line' when the rockets and mortars start flying in. So they'll just have to jet in and out [sorry gaia] all the time to achieve nothing. At best they'll reside in Israel so they can snipe and spit at the hands that protect and feed, for balance and neutrality you understand. That's what I think the detail is, so I won't blame Reuters for not elaborating on this.

No comments:

Background

The essence of conservatism is caution. The essence of Leftism is anger

This blog is written solely by John Ray, who has a Ph.D. degree in psychology and 200+ papers published in the academic journals of the social sciences. It does occasionally comment on issues in psychology but is mainly aimed at giving a conservative psychologist's view on a broad range of topics. There are very few conservative psychologists.

The blog originated in Australia and many (but not most) posts discuss Australian matters. Australians have an unusually good awareness of events outside their own country. Australian newspapers feature news from Britain and the USA not as an afterthought but as a major part of their coverage. So Australians do tend to have a truly Western heart, which is the reason behind the old name for this blog. So events in Australia, Britain and the USA all feature frequently here, plus occasional coverage of other places, particularly Israel.

A primer in American politics for non-Americans:

SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land

The "GOP" stands for "Grand Old Party" and refers to the Republican party. The GOP is at present center/Right, while the Democrats have been undergoing a steady drift Leftwards and now have policies similar to mainstream European Leftist parties.

The ideological identity of both parties has however been very fluid -- almost reversing itself over time. In the mid 19th century, the GOP was the party of big government and concern for minorities while the Democrats advertised themselves as "The party of the white man" -- an orientation that lasted into the mid 20th century in the South. The Democrats are still obsessed with race but have now flipped into support for discrimination AGAINST whites.

Was Pope Urban VIII the first Warmist? Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe.

Global warming

Calibrated in whole degrees. Larger graph here

Climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

The term "Fascism" is mostly used by the Left as a brainless term of abuse. But when they do make a serious attempt to define it, they produce very complex and elaborate definitions -- e.g. here and here. In fact, Fascism is simply extreme socialism plus nationalism. But great gyrations are needed to avoid mentioning the first part of that recipe, of course.

Two examples of Leftist racism below (much more here and here):

Beatrice Webb, a founder of the London School of Economics and the Fabian Society, and married to a Labour MP, mused in 1922 on whether when English children were "dying from lack of milk", one should extend "the charitable impulse" to Russian and Chinese children who, if saved this year, might anyway die next. Besides, she continued, there was "the larger question of whether those races are desirable inhabitants" and "obviously" one wouldn't "spend one's available income" on "a Central African negro".

Hugh Dalton, offered the Colonial Office during Attlee's 1945-51 Labour government, turned it down because "I had a horrid vision of pullulating, poverty stricken, diseased nigger communities, for whom one can do nothing in the short run and who, the more one tries to help them, are querulous and ungrateful."

Defensible and indefensible usages of the term "racism"

The book, The authoritarian personality, authored by T.W. Adorno et al. in 1950, has been massively popular among psychologists. It claims that a set of ideas that were popular in the "Progressive"-dominated America of the prewar era were "authoritarian". Leftist regimes always are authoritarian so that claim was not a big problem. What was quite amazing however is that Adorno et al. identified such ideas as "conservative". They were in fact simply popular ideas of the day but ones that had been most heavily promoted by the Left right up until the then-recent WWII. See here for details of prewar "Progressive" thinking.

R.I.P. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet deposed a law-defying Marxist President at the express and desperate invitation of the Chilean parliament. He pioneered the free-market reforms which Reagan and Thatcher later unleashed to world-changing effect. That he used far-Leftist methods to suppress far-Leftist violence is reasonable if not ideal. The Leftist view that they should have a monopoly of violence and that others should follow the law is a total absurdity which shows only that their hate overcomes their reason

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a war criminal. Both British and American codebreakers had cracked the Japanese naval code so FDR knew what was coming at Pearl Harbor. But for his own political reasons he warned no-one there. So responsibility for the civilian and military deaths at Pearl Harbor lies with FDR as well as with the Japanese. The huge firepower available at Pearl Harbor, both aboard ship and on land, could have largely neutered the attack. Can you imagine 8 battleships and various lesser craft firing all their AA batteries as the Japanese came in? The Japanese naval airforce would have been annihilated and the war would have been over before it began.

FDR prolonged the Depression. He certainly didn't cure it.

WWII did NOT end the Great Depression. It just concealed it. It in fact made living standards worse

Joe McCarthy was eventually proved right after the fall of the Soviet Union. To accuse anyone of McCarthyism is to accuse them of accuracy!

The KKK was intimately associated with the Democratic party. They ATTACKED Republicans!

People who mention differences in black vs. white IQ are these days almost universally howled down and subjected to the most extreme abuse. I am a psychometrician, however, so I feel obliged to defend the scientific truth of the matter:

The average African adult has about the same IQ as an average white 11-year-old and African Americans (who are partly white in ancestry) average out at a mental age of 14. The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they have had to concede that sort of gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ. 11-year olds can do a lot of things but they also have their limits and there are times when such limits need to be allowed for.

America's uncivil war was caused by trade protectionism. The slavery issue was just camouflage, as Abraham Lincoln himself admitted. See also here

Did William Zantzinger kill poor Hattie Carroll?

Did Bismarck predict where WWI would start or was it just a "free" translation by Churchill?

Leftist psychologists have an amusingly simplistic conception of military organizations and military men. They seem to base it on occasions they have seen troops marching together on parade rather than any real knowledge of military men and the military life. They think that military men are "rigid" -- automatons who are unable to adjust to new challenges or think for themselves. What is incomprehensible to them is that being kadaver gehorsam (to use the extreme Prussian term for following orders) actually requires great flexibility -- enough flexibility to put your own ideas and wishes aside and do something very difficult. Ask any soldier if all commands are easy to obey.

A good article on Leftist hate

The real history of social Darwinism

Some personal memoirs

Memoir highlights

THE PSYCHOLOGIST

Details please Hillary

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive