Obama No Longer Suffers from Mental Disorder

Obama no longer suffers from a mental disorder, and no, this is not from WikiLeaks.

In a recent article in The Weekly Standard entitled "American Narcissus", Jonathan V. Last writes:

"Why has Barack Obama failed so spectacularly? Is he too dogmatically liberal or too pragmatic? Is he a socialist, or an anticolonialist, or a philosopher-president? Or is it possible that Obama’s failures stem from something simpler: vanity. Politicians as a class are particularly susceptible to mirror-gazing. But Obama’s vanity is overwhelming. It defines him, his politics, and his presidency."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/american-narcissus_516686.html

Fortunately for Obama (and also Hillary), the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (due out in 2013) has eliminated five of the 10 personality disorders that are listed in the current edition, and narcissistic personality disorder is among the five.

The decision to eliminate narcissistic personality disorder ("N.P.D.") from the list, however, is causing no small amount of controversy. As noted in an article in The New York Times entitled "A Fate That Narcissists Will Hate: Being Ignored", Charles Zanor writes:

"One of the sharpest critics of the DSM committee on personality disorders is a Harvard psychiatrist, Dr. John Gunderson, an old lion in the field of personality disorders and the person who led the personality disorders committee for the current manual.

Asked what he thought about the elimination of narcissistic personality disorder, he said it showed how 'unenlightened' the personality disorders committee is.

'They have little appreciation for the damage they could be doing.' He said the diagnosis is important in terms of organizing and planning treatment."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/views/30mind.html

Perhaps what Dr. Gunderson fails to take into account is that N.P.D. has reached epidemic proportions and that in today's world it has become the norm.

Saad Hariri Travels to Tehran to Save Lebanon from Hezbollah

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri arrived in Iran on Saturday (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP1BR20101126). The reason for his visit? The U.N. tribunal investigating the 2005 car bomb murder of his father, then Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, is soon to announce that Hezbollah stood behind the execution. Saad Hariri is concerned that the announcement might cause Hezbollah to attempt a coup d'état or alternatively provoke a war with Israel in order to distract public opinion. Given that Hezbollah is Iran's proxy in Lebanon and doesn't act without instructions from Tehran, Saad Hariri is hoping to convince Ahmadinejad ("the chimp" as he is known in Iran) to prevail upon Hezbollah not to act rashly.

Does this bring to mind a movie? It reminds me of a scene in "Goodfellas", when restaurant owner Sonny goes to mob boss Paulie to ask that Tommy, one of Paulie's underlings, stop terrorizing him. As an incentive, Sonny suggests to Paulie that he partner with him in the restaurant, and the following dialogue ensues:

Paulie: You know anything about this fucking restaurant business?
[Talking to Henry, the movie's protagonist and also an underling of Paulie]

Sonny: He knows everything about it. I mean he's in the joint 24 hours a day. I mean another fucking few minutes he could be a stool that's how often he's in there.

Henry: [narrating] Now the guy's got Paulie as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Paulie. Trouble with the bill? He can go to Paulie. Trouble with the cops, deliveries, Tommy, he can call Paulie. But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week, no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.

In fact, the scene being played out in Tehran is far more tragic than that in "Goodfellas". Saad Hariri feels compelled to plead with those who ordered the murder of his father to control their hitmen. Now let's see the price Saad Hariri will have to pay (only disavowal of the U.N. indictment against Hezbollah?) and whether the deal will nevertheless cause Lebanon, like Sonny's restaurant in "Goodfellas", to go up in flames.

In retrospect, the decision this month of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee to release $100 million in military aid for the Lebanese army (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-releases-100-million-aid-for-lebanon-army-1.324411) in the hope that this might facilitate resistance to Hezbollah on the part of Saad Hariri is also proving futile. Unfortunately, Hariri has seen how "tough" Obama has gotten with the Islamic Republic of Iran and has made a calculated decision with whom he stands the best chance of survival.

Turkey's Erdogan to Receive Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights

No, this is no joke. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan is traveling to Libya next week to receive the "Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights" next week. Previous recipients of the prize include Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

I don't know what's worse: that the author of the Lockerbie bombing, which killed all 243 passengers and 16 crew members on Pan Am Flight 103, is handing out human rights prizes, or, that the Prime Minister of Turkey has agreed to receive an award from this monster.

And just when I was beginning to think that there could be no prize more foolish than the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Obama . . . .

[Earlier this week, Erdogan was given a leadership prize by the Union of Arab Banks, while visiting Lebanon and engaging in veiled threats against Israel. Meanwhile, Armenians in Beirut - there are 150,000 Armenians living in Lebanon -rioted in response to Erdogan's visit. Perhaps Erdogan is indeed richly qualified to receive the Gaddafi prize.]

Roger Cohen Proven Wrong Again

As noted in my prior blog entry, in an online op-ed in yesterday's New York Times entitled "The Real Threat to America" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Roger Cohen stated, "it remains a mystery that the enemy — if as powerful as portrayed — has not contrived a single terrorist act on U.S. soil since 9/11."

Presumably Cohen, unlike many of his readers, is aware that "to contrive" means "to plan or plot", and it is dumbfounding that no one at The New York Times thought fit to rectify this error.

Be that as it may, a mere day has gone by, and the following Associated Press story is now appearing online in The New York Times:

"Undercover agents in a sting operation stopped a Somali-born teenager from blowing up a van full of explosives at a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland on Friday, federal authorities said.

. . . .

U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton released federal court documents to The Associated Press and the Oregonian newspaper that show the sting operation began in June after an undercover agent learned that Mohamud had been in regular e-mail contact with an 'unindicted associate' in Pakistan's northwest, a frontier region where Al Qaida and Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents are strong.

. . . .

U.S. authorities have been struggling against a recent spate of terror plans by U.S. citizens or residents."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/11/27/us/AP-US-Portland-Car-Bomb-Plot.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

No plans or plots? Yeah, right.

Cohen said in his op-ed that "America is a nation of . . . risk-taking." Anyone still interested in boarding a flight without security checks?

Roger Cohen's "The Real Threat to America": Thanks, Roger, for Letting Us Know

In an online op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "The Real Threat to America" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Roger Cohen would have us know, "it remains a mystery that the enemy — if as powerful as portrayed — has not contrived a single terrorist act on U.S. soil since 9/11."

Roger seems to have a very short memory. Months after becoming a U.S. citizen, Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, was given $15,000 and five days of explosives training by the Taliban earlier this year in order to plant a car bomb not far from the The New York Times building in Manhattan. When sentenced by a federal court, Shahzad declared that Osama bin Laden "will be known as no less than Saladin of the 21st-century crusade". He further declared: "Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow."

Roger has also forgotten the attempts by al-Qaeda less than a month ago to send printer cartridges containing PETN, a highly powerful odorless military grade explosive, on flights to the U.S.

These two recent incidents are among those known to the public.

Cohen goes on to write: "America is a nation of . . . risk-taking." Notwithstanding Cohen's sensitivities involving full-body scanners, I think there are few Americans willing to take the risk of boarding a flight on which a determined enemy has hidden PETN.

Full-body scan or leave my family in an explosion at 30,000 feet? Sorry, Roger, if I choose life with the accompanying indignity.

[Query: Are op-eds at The New York Times subject to fact checks? Cohen's contention that "the enemy . . . has not contrived a single terrorist act on U.S. soil since 9/11" left me stupefied. Perhaps he reached this conclusion after speaking with Congresswoman Betty McCollum, who not long ago went on record as saying that "al-Qaeda no longer poses a threat to the United States" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/10/jg-caesarea-award-for-stupidest-member.html).]

Nicholas Kristof's "Bless the Orange Sweet Potato": Unfortunately No Warning About Vitamin A Toxicity

In his New York Times op-ed of today's date "Bless the Orange Sweet Potato" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/opinion/25kristof.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Nicholas Kristof observes the importance of vitamin A supplements for children in Africa: "Without enough vitamin A, small children often go blind or die."

Unfortunately, Kristof does not warn his New York Times readership that vitamin A taken in excessive amounts can be dangerous, and his readers in the U.S. and Europe should be careful before swallowing large quantities of vitamin A supplements.

Although vitamin A is important for various body functions, excess consumption of vitamin A can be toxic (hypervitaminosis A) and cause: nausea, jaundice, irritability, anorexia, vomiting, blurry vision, headaches, hair loss, muscle and abdominal pain and weakness, drowsiness and altered mental status. Chronic cases of excess vitamin A can result in dry skin, drying of the mucous membranes, fever, insomnia, fatigue, weight loss, bone fractures, anemia and diarrhea. Excess vitamin A can also adversely affect developing fetuses.

I have attempted to post a comment in response to Kristof's op-ed that details the above. In addition, I have asked The New York Times to provide an addendum to the op-ed as it appears online and also to provide a caveat in a future print edition.

Will The New York Times run the caveat, or might the dwindling circulation of the Gray Lady be further reduced as the result of vitamin A poisoning? Stay tuned . . .

Happy Thanksgiving!

North Korea and Obama: Pathological Bully Meets Doctrinaire Pacifist

How crazy are those North Koreans? Answer: No crazier than Obama.

Do you recall in March how the Cheonan, a 1,200-ton corvette, was sunk by a North Korean torpedo? According to the BBC:

"The patrol vessel, with 104 people aboard, sank after an unexplained explosion tore through its hull.

Several sailors also died, officials are quoted saying as divers prepared to return to the scene after daybreak.

South Korean officials played down earlier reports that it may have been the result of an attack by North Korea."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8589507.stm

Oh, yes, the old unexplained explosion in the hull . . .

And now, try to remember Obama's personal response to this outrage? Whoops! That's right: Always anxious to avoid a potential confrontation, Obama didn't react. Am I exaggerating? Perhaps. Three months after the incident Obama did say that North Korea should be "held to account" for the sinking of the Cheonon, and, "There has [sic - he was speaking without a teleprompter] to be consequences for such irresponsible behaviour" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10426209). Yet, was North Korea ever "held to account"? What exactly were the "consequences"?

Obama rode into office believing that North Korea and Iran were simply misunderstood. Show them kindness and radiate the charm that brought him into the Oval Office, and they, too, could be turned around.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work on this basis.

Remember the bully from school who demanded your lunch money? If you stood up to him on day one, he subsequently pursued weaker quarry. Heck, you didn't even have to fight. But if you were foolish enough to believe that he was just a poor misunderstood child from a dysfunctional family and attempt to befriend him, you would be going hungry for the remainder of the year.

Obama, in his infinite wisdom, never learned this lesson. Quite the contrary: One of his first foreign policy moves was to seek rapprochement with Iran, and this has blown up in his face.

But imagine now if Obama continues to appease the Islamic Republic of Iran. What will happen when Iran, armed with atomic weapons, shells territory along its disputed border with Iraq in a manner akin to that of North Korea? Or when Iran demands dominion over Bahrain? Or when Iran threatens Saudi Arabia?

Far-fetched? Just wait.