Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

Dr Sanity discusses the Lisa Nowak case on MSNBC.

Veteran NASA flight surgeon and professional psychiatrist Patricia Santy worked at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston from 1984 and 1991. She talked to MSNBC.com about NASA practices and her thoughts about potential improvements to the screening.

Working at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston from 1984 and 1991, Santy eventually became a flight surgeon, or flight doctor, at Mission Control Center. She also is a board-certified psychiatrist, and helped develop psychiatric standards used to assess astronaut applicants in that period.

Santy literally wrote the book on the physiological analysis involved in choosing space flyers titled “Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Selection of Astronauts and Cosmonauts.” She is widely regarded as a leading authority on the psychology of human spaceflight…

“NASA won’t even launch the shuttle if a screw is out of place in its hardware,” she said, “but they don’t think that this kind of interpersonal stress can result in catastrophic failure in the human element of their space system…”

“No selection procedure — no matter how good — can serve to identify future problems,” she said. “The problem for NASA is that there is no routine follow-up of the psychiatric or psychological evaluation after selection.” The space agency, she believes, “has always had a lot of hubris in this area…”

“When either medical or psychiatric issues arise, astronauts will surreptitiously go outside the system because they know it will cause them to get grounded. When that is discovered — and it usually is — there have never been any serious consequences.” This practice has reportedly gone back decades, to the very beginning of the astronaut program…”

The MSNBC article is a must read.

Why isn’t there a single example of a successful ‘People’s Paradise’? How is it that the best of intentioned revolutionaries was never able to produce a functional society? Why is it that societies that espouse economic equality and predicated on well meaning ideals, either secular or religious, have proved to be abject failures?

Socialists mistakenly believe that a collective ‘unity’ of beliefs, thoughts and ideologies empower a society. Their strength, they believe, are in the numbers of those who share their ideologies. Socialists believe that they have every right to design a society based on what they believe is in the best interest of that society. They also believe that an unwillingness to conform to their ideals, poses a threat, and quite possibly, a danger.

Capitalism, as Dr Sanity points out, is predicated on the diversity of beliefs, thoughts and ideologies.

For example, the socialist state takes a dim view of anyone or group that might demand lower taxes, changes in the state welfare benefits, or demands any kind of accountability, because less of burden on the individual and less control of the individual by the state, might empower that individual. In the socialist state, any kind of individualism and real self expression, empowered or otherwise, represents a threat to the state.

Last year, millions of Frenchmen turned out to protest an employers right to fire them from their jobs- even if their job performance was sub par. They demanded that the French government protect them from being held accountable to their employers. There are business owners in France that are afraid to initiate the complex procedures for firing employees, out the fear of retribution and violence.

Despite the leftist of stated disdain for capitalism and materialism, we have noted that

For today’s leftist, it is about ‘the color of one’s skin’ and not the ‘content of character. It is about image and not substance. The deliberate obfuscation continues and the blurring of reality continues. As the left indicts America as self absorbed and drunk with materialistic inclinations, they ignore yet another truth

…the most self absorbed and materialistic regimes are the leaders of the most tyrannical regimes in Africa and the Arab world, where greed, corruption, excess and deceit are the defining adjectives of those regimes. Those levels of greed, excess, corruption and self serving attitudes rival the most fanatical religious extremists in their tenacious expressions by citizens of all strata in those countries- and these are the leaders the left reveres.

Of course, progressives naturally see themselves as forward thinking. They believe their way of viewing the world is an improvement over the ‘old way’- hard work for greater personal gain, for example.

(it is interesting to note how ‘progressives’ have aligned themselves with Hollywood- the most narcissistic and self centered group of people on the planet. They are also among the most removed from the real world, believing themselves to be a kind of aristocracy, entitled to material things others would have to pay for. There is much truth to the old saying. ‘You are known by the company you keep.’ The ‘progressives’ have made clear their attachment to the phony aristocracy of Hollywood trumps the relationship they might have with the rest of us, ‘the little people.’)

Of course, the ‘progressives’ cannot and will not acknowledge the truth that the greatest philosophers and thinkers were free to think and present their cases to the population. It is the progressives, that want to present their own versions of history, religion and ideologies, without having to explain or defend themselves. Disagree with them and the wrath of the State will come down on you.

It is clear that many ‘progressives’ are actually regressive. The ‘my way or the highway’ kind of thinking is devolutionary, as if any and all disagreements are always invalid. The vitriol and visceral hatred of the current administration is a good example. No difference of opinion will be tolerated. Disagree and the well oiled machine of personal destruction comes out. The shameful display of that truth was evident during the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito.

Tens, if not hundreds of millions have died because of ‘My way or the highway’ ideologies. Disagree with the powers that be or want to be, and there are calls of, ‘Death to…! Disagree loud enough and you are marked for death. We all got a taste of that as the cartoon riots unfolded. That was a clear case of ‘my way or the highway’ unleashed on democratic societies.

‘My way or the highway’ is a nothing more than a regression to a more barbaric time, when disputes, disagreements and different ideas were settled only when blood was spilled. That was an earlier incarnation of ‘my way or the highway.’

Of course, mankind evolved and political expression advanced when societies came to tolerate those with different ideas and beliefs. We advanced because we allowed each of us the freedom the opportunity to achieve whatever it was we were capable of in any endeavor we chose. No one told us what to do, what to think or what to invent. In free societies, possibilities were open to all, irrespective of their political persuasion.

The Soviets produced engineers by the millions. They built the world’s largest hotel, the Rossiya, in Moscow, meant to be showcase of Soviet superiority. When you get up close and inside, it is hard to miss the walls that are crooked and floors that are uneven. It is true the Russians led early on in the space race. It is also true that many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, died over the years because money that was spent on the space race was diverted from providing food to Soviet citizens. That malaise infected Communist eastern Europe. Once a net exporter of grain, Poland reached a point where she could barely feed herself. To put that in perspective, at one time, Poland grew more grain than France or Canada.

The Judeo-Christian ethic is just that- an ethic, an ideology that was to serve as the basis and foundation upon which a free nation might be built. The Judeo-Christian ethic is not an endorsement of religion- it is an endorsement of ideas, not the least of which is the validity and importance of freedom. That Judeo-Christian ethic serves as a definition of freedom. That ideas contained in those ethics have come to define theg boundaries of our freedom and our obligations to out society. We have been blessed with freedom and democracy as a way of life.

It is also true that free societies not only exist, but they prosper and progress as well. If there were no free societies and democracies, our world would look exactly like much of the Islamic world today- torn apart by internal strife and political mayhem, with almost a billion people languishing in a netherworld, where their only purpose is to serve the needs and whims of a regime that cares nothing for them and attaches no value to their life.

For the most part, progressives do not want to acknowledge that there is not a single example of a regimes they have endorsed that has not resorted to murder, oppression and repression. There are some regimes are authoritarian, caring only about controlling behavior. There are other regimes are totalitarian, seeking to control not only behavior, but thought as well. The only regime ever supported by the left (only to be later abandoned) that made a success of itself was Israel.

Real freedom represents the highest political and ethical expression and aspirations of the human condition.

After witnessing the spectacular and bloody imposition and failures of socialism, one can only conclude that ideology has has proved to be a monumental failure on the scale of political evolution. Socialism cannot be made to adapt to the real world environment that places freedom atop the evolutionary that scale, because socialism refuses to adapt and acknowledge that people are best served when free to choose for themselves.

Far too many progressives have not adapted to the reality that accelerating freedom is the destiny of mankind. We are meant to be free choose, free to believe, and free to express themselves in any way they see fit, free of interference.

Far too many progressives are still debating the merits of the wheel.

From the February almanac:

Daniel Pearl, murdered and beheaded- Among his last words, was an ‘admission‘ to being the ’son of a Jew.’

The administrator of a London Islamic school admits to using textbooks that refers to Jews and Christians as ‘monkeys and apes. She defiantly claims the references to Jews and Christians as ‘monkeys and apes’ are taken ‘out of context.’ The administrator does not indicate the proper context for describing Jews and Christians as ‘monkeys and apes.’

At a recent Democrat Party meeting, the opening prayer was delivered by a man with clear and direct ties to terror and bigotry. He counts among his friends Holocaust deniers and makes less than veiled threats against Jews and others.

So far, there have been no editorials taking note of these events.

The Anchoress explores the real meaning of free speech:

One of the paradoxes of free speech is that while you and I are (mostly, for the time being) free to say what we wish in this country, our words are not sacrosanct and untouchable - other free people are (mostly, for the time being) free to say what they wish in response. No one has to listen to anyone and accept their opinion as the final word. Hence, the Dixie Chicks are free to say “we hate that Bush is from Texas” and others are free to say, “okay, and I hate that opinion, so I won’t buy your records.”

It’s not censorship. It’s simply another opinion. The Chicks are no martyrs to free speech, they simply came to the uncomfortable conclusion of that free speech paradox: you can say what you want, but you have to be willing to take the consequences for it.

The Anchoress is right, of course. Free speech really isn’t free at all unless you are willing to afford the same rights to others. When others complain about the response to free speech, they are in effect demanding a kind of censorship, so that their words are afforded greater meaning and import.

A case in point is the brouhaha surrounding bloggers Pandagon and Shakespeare’s Sister, hired by the John Edwards for President campaign. The ‘Catholic bashing’ made some very upset and many more uncomfortable.

We reminded Amanda Marcotte of her own, earlier remarks, in a comment a Pandagon post, Edwards Camp: Cavinvg In To The Right Wing Never Works. We noted that in an earlier post, she had correctly and succinctly observed that

“…offending people and asking them to still cheer on the offensive statement is completely ass-backwards. They’re offending people without really thinking about why it’s offensive, which in turn destroys all discernment between statements. They can add in any subtext they want after the fact, but when you speak in broad images and short slogans, “Mow My Lawn, Eddie” speaks volumes more than any subtext you can imagine, particularly if that subtext isn’t actually aired until you get in trouble.”

Our comment ended as follows, with a thought or two (in italics) that resonated from an earlier Anchoress post:

In fact, does anyone really expect John Edwards, or any other presidential candidate, to remain silent when Catholics are bashed? Should candidates remain silent if Jews or blacks that don’t support a particular agenda are vilified?

Presidents and presidential candidates represent the entire nation, not just those who supported him or her. While that does not mean that he or she must kowtow to opponents, it does not mean that opponents can be vilified or demonized, either.

The problem isn’t necessarily John Edwards.

In a milestone post, Utopian Dreams And Nightmares, Dr Sanity clearly distinguishes between the arguments of those who would impose their ideas and beliefs and those who would attempt to persuade you.

The do-gooder leftist in all the various ideological incarnations–the antiwar crowd, the environmental crowd, the communists, socialists, and assorted collectivists–offers the rationale that he does what he does for the “common good” and for “social justice”, “peace” and “brotherhood”. His high-minded, self-righteous rhetoric justifies (to him anyway) imposing his will and beliefs on others for their own good; and he will not hesitate to use whatever coercive capablity he has at hand to get others to do what he wants and what he says.

The capitalist, on the other hand, is overtly out to pursue his own selfish profit, and understands he must use persuasion. That is, he must convince people that his ideas and the products of his mind are better than all the rest so that they will be willing to part with their hard-earned money to possess them. His desire for power over others is manifested in an indirect manner because people must wnat what he has to offer and believe that they will benefit from an interaction with him.

There can be no real debate or exchange of ideas between those who seek to impose ideologies and those who submit their ideologies for scrutiny and examination. If an idea can stand on it’s own in the free marketplace of thoughts and ideas, well, that idea has merit. When an idea cannot stand on it’s own, that idea cannot be made more relevant or meaningful if it is imposed on others.

Earlier in her post, Dr Sanity quoted Leszak Kolakowski, a noted Polish philosopher who was unceremoniously booted from the Communist party.

Socialism as a social or moral philosophy was based on the ideal of human brotherhood, which can never be implemented by institutional means. There has never been, and there will never be, an institutional means of making people brothers. Fraternity under compulsion is the most malignant idea devised in modern times; it is the perfect path to totalitarian tyranny.

Think about this:

So, many times in politics, programs that originate with the “best of intentions” end up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. Yet, the political left is so ideologically committed to the Utopian ideal of egalitarianism which, in the real world simply makes everyone equally poor and miserable (except for the lucky elites who control the social system) that they reflexly keep pouring money into programs that can be shown to actively harm the people they are meant to help; and reinforce the stereotypes they are meant to end.

The politically correct left heaps scorn on business, capitalism, free trade, and globalization; and instead glorify and praise the most primitive and barbaric of cultures and cultural practices. As Bob suggests, they come for the egalitarianism, but stay for the bestiality and tyranny they unleash with their “progressive” ways.

If they really cared about helping the poor; if they really cared about social “justice”–then they would shut the hell up and get out of the way of those evil, greedy capitalistic bastards, who, while pursuing their own selfish, profit-making agendas, in the long run effortlessly manage to increase the standard of living and improve the lives of everyone around them.

Where are the editorial writers?