BlogWonks

ZombieTime has a slew of pictures from the anti-Marines protest in Berkeley that took place several days ago.

Plug your nose and click here.

Fortunately, the palate is cleansed with the sorbet of a few counter-protesters amid what appears to be a pink unemployment line operating a floating meth lab while waiting for the next check from the folks to arrive in the mail.

(h/t LGF)

Hillary's campaign has put out what appears to have been intended to be an internal memo about strategy following next Tuesday's primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The memo essentially paints Obama's non-blowouts as proof that he's lagging. Huh? Yeah, I thought that to. Here's the memo.

Hillary's people are admitting that Barack is out-campaigning them, out-fundraising them, out-orating them, out-spending them, and getting more big endorsements than them.

With all that, if Obama doesn't win all four states, Hillary's people say, this is evidence of a problem:

Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:

Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

I never thought I'd feel sorry for the Clintons, but now — I still don't. But it's getting really pathetic nonetheless.

Any chance the feminsits will read this and understand that men and women want and love each other and that the feminsts are the abnormal ones who believe everyone is abnormal like them too?

Not likely…

Normal is not what the majority does.
Its not truly defined that way, except by ideologues and normalizers, and anti-absoluters.

All one has to do is ask a psychiatrist and one will get a much more nuanced argument rather than the MSM take, which is what most are doing.

Normalize, is not to make normal, its to make something appear normal.

Study examines how men and women view marital and parental time pressures

Only about one-fifth of employed women and men are completely satisfied with the time they spend with their spouse and their children according to a recent study published in the Journal of Family Issues.

“Typically in past studies, full-time workers and parents tend to be more time pressured than those who work part time or who don’t have children,” says Dr. Susan Roxburgh, associate professor of sociology at Kent State University.

In a study funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Roxburgh examined how employment and parenthood influence time pressures pertaining to marital partners and the parental role.

She found that men are significantly more likely to want more time with their spouses, while women were more likely than men to say they wanted to improve the quality of time they spend with their spouse. Both women and men equally were likely to say that they wanted to slow down the pace of time spent with their spouse.

However when it comes to time spent with children, only women felt that a hectic pace affected the time they spent with their children.

Source: Kent State University

I was reading a piece at the Huffington Post ("It is wise to study the ways of ones adversary") called "Bill Buckley's conservatism."

Much of the column I agreed with, but toward the end I ran across this fallacious gem:

For now, it's enough to note that Buckley deserves laurels not simply for his elegant flair and tolerant temperament, but also his contempt for radical ideologues on the right — the unhinged types who are now whining that John McCain isn't conservative enough because he has the temerity to recognize that global warming is actually taking place and needs to be stopped.

This kind of tripe is oft-trumpeted, mostly by liberals who are thrilled that the GOP is about to nominate the weakest possible candidate and become angered when somebody points that out. But as far as the "McCain recognizes that global warming is taking place" thing, I haven't seen a bigger pile of crap since witnessing a head-on collision between a septic cleaning van and a Port-O-San delivery truck.

John McCain does not believe that man-made climate change is taking place. McCain is constantly saying things like "even if we're wrong, so what, we're creating a cleaner world." Along putting more money in the hands of polticians — which is McCain's specialty.

As evidence that it's really only about the government getting their hands on more private sector money, McCain did an interview not long ago with Frank Beckmann on WJR in Detroit.

Beckmann: "It's (forcing companies to adopt 'green' technologies') going to be costly to Americans, isn't it?"

McCain: "I know of nothing costly to Americans. As I say, General Electric is makin' lots of money…"

Yes, and they'll pass it along to the consumer, Mr. Honorary Democrat. Thanks a lot.

This is the guy who calls himself "conservative." In actuality, McCain is no different than Bill Clinton, who once told a business owner who expressed concern over high taxes to "just raise your price."

Here's a short clip from the WJR radio interview from January. Put on your waders before clicking "play":

Prince Harry (aka "the bullet magnet") had been serving in Afghanistan for ten weeks until the word leaked out, and now that the news is public he may have to head for home.

His deployment there was subject to a news blackout deal struck to preserve his safety, but it broke down after foreign media leaked the story.

The deal included guaranteed access to Harry for interviews if the media wouldn't report on the deployment.

It's good to see that the Brits still have some media who, in the end, realize which side they're on. Can you imagine the larger American media (NYT, CNN, USA Today) being able to keep it zipped for ten weeks about anything to do with the war — especially about something that may actually help the U.S. win the damn thing?

Maybe the NYT did know about this, but if we were to substitute Harry with, say, Jenna Bush, the secret would have been out before Dubya could say "nu-kew-lur."

In the old days, before treason fell under the umbrella of freedom of speech, reporting information beneficial to the enemy in wartime would have meant the firing squad for the likes of the leaker. Nowadays the mainstream media will not discern between friend and enemy — believing it's not their place to do so. If the enemy wins the war, however, the enemy will do the discerning for them, but the media doesn't seem to realize that.

In 1780, British Maj. Andre was found in possession of the plans for West Point given to him by Benedict Arnold. After some American scouts found the documents after a patdown, the major was hanged.

If the same thing happened today, the mainstream media in the United States would have called for George Washington's head for violating the privacy rights of Andre. After all, the major was merely a tourist sharing cultural exchange with a local. Benedict Arnold would have then secured a tenured humanities professorship at Columbia University.

Of course, we're talking about papers like the New York Times, which would have done such a good job at helping to win the Revolutionary War that the cover of the paper would have looked like this:

US military forces, and ground forces in particular, have operated at a high pace since the attacks of September 11, 2001, including the support of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Between 2001 and July 2007, approximately 931,000 US Army and Marine Corps service members deployed for overseas military operations, including about 312,000 National Guard or Reserve members, according to the Department of Defense.

To support ongoing military operations and related activities, Congress has appropriated billions of dollars since 2001, and through September 2007, the Department of Defense has reported obligating about $492.2 billion to cover these expenses, of which a large portion are related to readiness.

In addition, DOD’s annual appropriation, now totaling about $480 billion for fiscal year 2008, includes funds to cover readiness needs.

While DOD has overcome difficult challenges in maintaining a high pace of operations over the past 6 years and US forces have gained considerable combat experience, reports have shown that extended operations in Iraq and elsewhere have had significant consequences for military readiness, particularly with regard to the Army and Marine Corps. To meet mission requirements specific to Iraq and Afghanistan, the department has taken steps to increase the availability of personnel and equipment for deploying units, and to refocus their training on assigned missions.

For example, to maintain deployed force levels, DOD has increased the length of deployments and frequency of mobilizations, but it is unclear whether these adjustments will affect recruiting and retention. The Army and Marine Corps have also transferred equipment from non-deploying units and pre-positioned stocks to support deploying units, affecting the availability of items for non-deployed units to meet other demands.

In addition, they have refocused training units extensively for counterinsurgency missions, with little time available to train for a fuller range of missions. The DOD has adopted strategies, such as relying more on Navy and Air Force personnel and contractors to perform some tasks formerly handled by Army or Marine Corps personnel.

If current operations continue at the present level of intensity, DOD could face difficulty in balancing these commitments with the need to rebuild and maintain readiness. Over the past several years, the Government Accounting Office has reported on a wide range of issues related to military readiness and made numerous recommendations to enhance DOD’s ability to manage and improve readiness.

Given the change in the security environment since September 11, 2001, and demands on US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuilding readiness will be a long-term and complex effort.

However, the GAO believes the Defense Department can take measures that will advance progress in both the short and long terms. A common theme is the need for DOD to take a more strategic decision-making approach to ensure programs and investments are based on plans with measurable goals, validated requirements, prioritized resource needs, and performance measures to gauge progress.

Overall, the GAO recommended that DOD develop a near-term plan for improving the readiness of ground forces that, among other things, establishes specific goals for improving unit readiness, prioritizes actions needed to achieve those goals, and outlines an investment strategy to clearly link resource needs and funding requests.

The GAO also made recommendations in several specific readiness-related areas, including that DOD develop equipping strategies to target shortages of items required to equip units preparing for deployment, and DOD adjust its training strategies to include a plan to support full-spectrum training. DOD agreed with some recommendations, but has yet to fully implement them.

For others, particularly when GAO recommended that DOD develop more robust plans linked to resources, DOD believed its current efforts were sufficient. GAO continues to believe such plans are needed.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

Patricia Pearson is a writer who possesses a plethora of interests. A great deal of information concerning her can be found at her website, called “Pearson’s Post.” She has won numerous awards and is a regular contributor to The USA Today, and Canada’s National Post. Her work has also appeared in Spy, Chatelaine, the New York Times, the Times of London, New York Observer, Redbook, the Guardian, Nerve, Shift, and Saturday Night. Mrs. Pearson has authored several books such as Believe Me, When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, and Life on a French Poster. At present, she lives with her family in Toronto, Canada. The release of her latest book occasioned my second interview with her.

BC: Congratulations on A Brief History of Anxiety [Yours and Mine]. Auden dubbed his time “The Age of Anxiety,” but can a better claim be made to it being true of our time?

Patricia Pearson: Rates of clinical anxiety are extremely high in North America right now. I think historians will look back and consider us to have been a part of Auden’s Age. We are still in the maelstrom of clashing cultures and shifting values. Modernity has thrown us for a loop. Primarily, it is an age of uncertainty. Humans have always coped with hazard, but their rituals and beliefs were intact, and acted as buffers against personal anxiety. In our Age, we have tossed out faith and ritual and social rules and common cause, and rendered ourselves isolated. In my opinion, this is why our rates of anxiety and depression are soaring.

BC: Would you say that the great size of our governments directly impacts the public’s mood along with the prevalence of anxiety within the general population?

Patricia Pearson: I’m not sure what you mean by this, Bernard. Government can certainly play at fear-mongering, whatever its size or character, just as media does. I am a journalist, a former crime reporter, and I know for a fact that I participated in fanning flames by encouraging readers to pay what psychologists call “selective attention to threat.” We’re all going to be murdered by serial killers! Or terrorists! Media has a huge role to play in enhancing people’s sense of powerlessness and unease. This is why I now write a column devoted solely to good news. (For CBC.ca) It may not be as dramatic or as sexy, but it’s just as real — the constructive and positive efforts being made by good-hearted and ingenius people all over the world to solve critical problems.

BC: Might we regard anxiety as being holdover from our evolutionary past which was once a very good thing but now, like cravings for salt and fat, potentially disabling?

Patricia Pearson: I think so, yes. Neuroscience has shown that the ‘fight or flight response’ our brains trigger in response to menace, such as the prowling leopard our distant ancestors darted away from, can also be triggered by threats that resist interpretation. I’m no expert on this subject, but it has to do with the neurobiological interplay between the amygdala and the cerebral cortex. From an evolutionary perspective, our brains need to interpret the source of menace before the amygdala stops sending out alarm signals. But if we cannot interpret the source of menace, in other words if the culture itself feels threatening or bewildering or too complex, then the alarm continues to sound.

BC: Do you agree that “preparation is the remedy for anxiety?”

Patricia Pearson: No. Fear is the remedy for anxiety. What I mean by that is that dealing with a clear and present danger will displace the more paralyzing and helpless sensation that is anxiety. Since I wrote my book, a family member has grown very ill. No time to be anxious. Time, instead, to be working the phones, finding cutting-edge treatments, battling doctors. This is what Virginia Woolf called ‘extreme reality.’ Anxiety is more about what T.S. Eliot wrote: “What shall we do now, what shall we do? Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door.”

BC: Along these lines, do you think that the “hypothetical analytical planning” you mention is just preparation gone mad? I think the word hypothetical tells us much about its usefulness.

Patricia Pearson: People cope with anxiety in a number of ways. In my case, I have often engaged in what psychologists call “hypothetical analytical planning.” Basically, I convince myself that if I can just foresee every conceivable contingency in the future and plan for it, I will somehow have control over my fate. It’s a delusion, a form of anticipatory worry that eventually just makes your head spin.

BC: When you note that “the essence of the condition is an intolerance of uncertainty” are you really referring to symptoms arising from an individual’s lack of realization that life cannot be controlled? That we never will be the masters of our world?

Patricia Pearson: There are two threads to this. Anxiety disorders are characterized by an intolerance of uncertainty because people who are prone to this neurologically and through childhood experience really ARE incapable of coping well with uncertainty. This has been shown with mice in a lab at Columbia University. If you knock out a certain gene, the mice are much less able to navigate ambiguous (changing) lay outs in a maze.
The other thread is cultural. America lives by the myth of the supercompetent individual who can rise above all challenges –American Idol-style—with enough grit and persistence. In reality, we have very little control over fate. Most cultures in the world are completely aware of this lack of control, but Americans are not. So it is that much more anxiety-provoking when life doesn’t proceed in a predictable way, according to plan.
(Mice, Men and Best-Laid Plans…)

BC: Do you think that most writers possess higher than normal levels of anxiety?

Patricia Pearson: Creative people in general, both scientists and artists, have been found to have higher than average levels of mood disorder. Not just anxiety but also depression. The thinking now is that there may be a neurological correlation between mood and creativity.

BC: You cite a statistic claiming that 28.8 percent of the overall population in America suffers from anxiety and it is mentioned in the context of world health problems. This strikes me as being rather absurd. Isn’t measurement error a more likely cause? Or possibly a result of the World Mental Health Survey mislabeling normal behaviors such as occasionally feeling stress as indicators of pathology?

Patricia Pearson: The stat refers to a lifetime prevalence rate. In other words, over the course of their lifetimes nearly one third of Americans will have experienced some form of “clinically significant” anxiety, ranging from phobia to panic attacks to a bout of post-traumatic stress disorder. Let’s say you have ten people in a room. Ask them their stories: one of them might have been in the Armed Forces, a second lost their husband in a fire, a third was once sexually assaulted. All those events could have generated acute anxiety. There’s your 30 per cent. The difference with the rest of the world is that people also have traumatic life events, but they are more buffered by their faith, their extended family, their rituals and beliefs. In tearing down all of our customs and traditional institutions in favour of more freedom, we are actually making ourselves less resilient.

BC: Lastly, the book is an extremely personal account of anxiety and the way it impacted your life. We find Patricia Pearson front and center. What would you say in response to someone who found it too self-indulgent?

Patricia Pearson: I’d tell them not to read memoirs. This book is driven by the narrative arc of my experience. So is William Styron’s self-portrait of depression, Darkness Visible, and Kay Redfield Jamison’s account of her bipolar illness: An Unquiet Mind. I don’t think it’s self-indulgent to offer up one’s own tale as a basis for conversation about an overarching human conundrum. What is self-indulgent is drinking too much Port.

BC: Thank you, Mrs. Pearson.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island and a series of video podcasts called “Chapin’s Inferno.” He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

For those not well versed in sleazy Chicago politics (and I unfortunately am having lived in Illinois for 12 years) Rick Moran at Pajamas Media has an excellent primer explaining Barack Hussein  Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko, and why it’s such a big deal.

Are you confused by the head spinning machinations of Barack Obama that allowed him to purchase a house worth $2.6 million (with a vacant lot next door that can be accessed only through the property where the house sits) for around $1.65 million? (Don’t worry, so is most of the press.)

Do you wonder why this “Agent of Change” and modern day prophet Barack Obama would have gotten himself involved with a man indicted for political corruption and fraud?

Well, allow me to clear things up for you. Following is a little primer on Rezko, Obama, and how Windy City politics can have its way even with new messiahs.
To set the stage, you have to remember that we’re talking about Chicago. This is “The City That Works.” No one disputes that. The question is who it “works” for. If you’re a member of the Democratic Machine, it works wonderfully.

This story is not going to go away no matter how much Obama tries to ignore it. If you want to be an educated voter I would encourage you to read the whole thing.

Campaigning in Ohio, Hillary Clinton was proudly introduced by one of her major endorsers:

My views on how we currently supply financial aid to Africa, which most often does nothing but create wealthier tyrants, are well documented in columns here, here and here.

But I have to admit that Bob Geldof's article in Time is a good read in that it actually points out some fatal flaws that allows our mistakes to happen over and over again — though I'm sure it wasn't intended that way.

Geldof's rather long piece had me from the opening lines:

I gave the president my book. He raised an eyebrow. "Who wrote this for ya, Geldof?" he said without looking up from the cover. Very dry. "Who will you get to read it for you, Mr. President?" I replied. No response.

It's that kind of mutual "touche'!" with which male friendships are born.

But Geldof helps highlight Bush's involvement in Africa (where he says Bush has done more in Africa than any other president) with these words about how little of it has been brought to the attention of the American people:

It is some story. And I have always wondered why it was never told properly to the American people, who were paying for it.

Uh, that's why it's never told properly to the American people — because we're paying for it, and the money disappears as fast as it's sent.

That it even needs to be told to the American people in the first place could be construed as evidence of an across-the-board lack of demand on our part for accountability as to where the hell our money is going, and more importantly, if it's doing anything but creating richer anti-American thugs in Africa.

And the fact that all this needs to be brought to our attention by the former singer for The Boomtown Rats just adds to the perplexity.

At any rate, it's an interesting essay, and you can read all the pages of it here.