Childhood origins of terrorism

Childhood origins of terrorism

If Cheney isn't already thinking this then he has some catching up to do, because some in the republican brain-trust are surely thinking this: namely, that criticizing Obama, being hypocritical, unfair, to him, is a good way to keep the press in the mood to defend him, keep them thinking of him as a reformer, and, most importantly, feel themselves still it's-a-new-day good Americans, while he goes about and passes an agenda that is actually mostly pleasing to many on the non tea-bagger right. If they (republican leadership) played it fair and respectable, it would be harder to resist the lure that remains out there -- that Obama is Bush3. Both sides are getting what they want out of this.

Focusing on mental illness would be so helpful. For the psychological explanations behind terrorism, that move young terrorists to strap explosives to themselves -- to want to die -- that I accept as true, please check out link at sig. ("Childhood Origins of Terrorism," Lloyd deMause). Whole nations can go mentally ill, though. "Estranged lone individuals" are part of a mythos that keeps us from understanding that huge things like war cannot be undertaken unless a large part of the populace is mentally ill. The corporate control theory, the greed-of-those-on-top theory, is false. It's what's going on in the unconscious desires of the rest of the pack, that matters.

A lot of people in my world respect deeply the restraint Obama brings to his leadership style. It takes a level of maturity (something Dick Cheney sure doesn't have) to hold back from reacting to critics impulsively while still being--and conveying that he is-- totally in charge. Those critics on the left and the right who view Obama's deliberateness as weakness are entitled to their opinions, of course, but for now I'll just say I'm very glad for his measured sense of authority. (Lucy with Diamonds, response to post, “A big double standard for Obama,” Joan Walsh, Salon, 30 Dec. 2009)

After Bush, being impulsive means being clownish. Every politician knows this. If you want now to deliver the hammer, you have to do it only after much patience and apparent consideration. Then you can do what you had the urge to do originally -- squash -- but can convince yourself that it really was only after "exploring every other option." (It's a way, too, of making the violent climax that much more triumphant and exultant.) To me, the appeal, necessity of this new style / aesthetic these days is so obvious, that those who would convince us Obama really is just by nature temperate, patient, measured, would need to show how these lifetime, expert, crowd pleasers -- crowd READERS -- are just being true to themselves, and not just faithful to our gargantuan need for a becalming papa.

But about the measured approach . . . Aren't those who end up mowing down crowds described later by friends and kin, as polite, shy, well-mannered -- saintly?

Dick Cheney versus Mohammed Ali

America has just deflected a hit. It wasn't pretty, but the hit was deflected.

Dick Cheney's strategy: No is madder than me! I'm the mad dog! Let's start flailing madly, maybe knock out the guys in our own corner, hell, let's maybe jump out of the ring and knock out some guys in the audience. Let's beat our chest and roar! Smackdown!

Muhammed Ali's fight strategy: Let's calmly assess the situation even as it unfolds. Let's plot a reasonable strategy. Let's focus on footwork. Let's wait for the right moment.

And then: strike.

I'm glad that Obama has a poster of Muhammed Ali in the ring, and not Cheney. (Jack Sparx, response to post, “A big double standard for Obama”)

Jack Sparx

You're great, Jack, but maybe consider my last comment. If you're not careful, you may come to like / appreciate Obama, and we need you to stay wholy sane.

Link: A big double standard for Obama (Salon)

Link: Childhood Origins of Terrorism (Lloyd deMause)

Comments

Popular Posts