Now I have to post a revision to the blog on Iraqi violence...I didn't realize that over 1,300 Iraqis have already died due to last week's sectarian violence. That's a lot more serious than gang violence here...
However, I still feel that about half the people in the US are so spiteful right now because of their hatred for Bush, that they would celebrate if the Iraq War actually spiraled out of control into a civil war. The people that hate Bush the most are the ones that see things in black and white. If the war in Iraq is successful, and the Iraqi people embrace their new freedom and democracy, and unify themselves in the love of their nation and allow that nationalistic love to overcome their sectarian hatred, the people that hate Bush would be upset because somehow that would mean that everything Bush did was right or good. They are so vehemently opposed to the war, that they want the process to fail...talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Politics are so polarized right now, and sadly, the media is also so polarized right now. It is very difficult to actually find the truth. Were mistakes made in prosecuting the war? Yes. Was it a complete and utter failure? No. Did Bush emphasize certain intelligence that later turned out to not be true? Yes. Did he blatantly and schemingly lie to the American populace? No. I really think it is sad that people get so caught up in conspiracy theories and vilifying a person, that everything turns black and white in their minds.
Another example of this is the current uproar over the video briefing President Bush received re: the possibility that the Katrina storm surge could top the levees and cause flooding. Bush recently made a statement "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Now Bush-haters everywhere are jumping on this video and saying it proves he is "lying" and "covering up." The fact is, the man with the national hurricane watch program had said that their was a possibility that "maybe the storm surge would top the levees and cause flooding." Most experts believed that the storm surge would POSSIBLY push water over the top of the levees, but not actually breach them. Bush's statement was not a lie.
An interesting link that discusses post-breach news reports and expert interviews supports what Bush said on the Today show... The link is here...
http://www.urielw.com/nyt/levee.htmAnyway, I didn't mean to get into this for this long, but I really am tired of Americans seeing the world in Black and White.
One of the main things I value about my training to become a psychologist is that you can never jump to conclusions, that you should never "overanalyze" one piece of evidence and draw conclusions from that (although Psychodynamic/Freudian psychologists would disagree), and that you should never try to analyze anything out of context. An example of this is a recent psychological evaluation that I conducted on a woman with Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type. For years, she has maintained that her diagnosis is
Anxiety Neurosis. Many people have labeled her as crazy for that. Anxiety Neurosis isn't even in the current DSM-IV. I bet many mental health professionals considered her holding onto that diagnosis a sign of delusional thinking (which it actually is to some degree) and more seriously that she probably made the diagnosis up in her crazed mind. I even thought this initially, but I like to understand things in context and a quick Google search indicated that Anxiety Neurosis was a DSM-III diagnosis that was quite similar to Generalized Anxiety Disorder. It wasn't something she had made up. Many of the other delusions she has are based somewhat in reality too. For example, she thinks she does not need antipsychotics because one of the first times she was hospitalized for a psychotic break was after a thyroidectomy in the early 70s. The doctors gave her Synthroid (synthetic thyroid hormone) and the symptoms desisted. Ever since that day, she has held onto the false belief (delusion) that all she needs is Synthroid, even though other doctors have documented that in other hospitalizations for psychotic breaks, administering just Synthroid wasn't enough. It required antipsychotics. Without knowing the context, a person would just assume that this was some delusional rant...but in understanding, the delusion (although still a delusion) makes more sense.
Finally, everyone knows that Bush is not the greatest speaker in the world. There are calendars and books filled with "Bushisms" of things that he has said that sounded silly. If I was always put on the spot, and facing hostile questions from people who hated me, who were ready to pounce on any word I said and overanalyze it and misrepresent the true meaning, I think I would make some errors in speech myself. I hated this as early as Dan Quayle's vice presidency. Dan Quayle was a senator and a vice president. He was smart, capable, and successful in his life. HOwever, when in stressful situations, he said things that sounded funny or idiotic. Dan Quayle was not stupid, but the hostile media grabbed ahold of those situations and created a negative public opinion about Mr. Quayle.
I am also tired of the media sensationalizing everything. It might sell stories, and gain viewership, but it is hurting the news media in the long run. I think more and more people are going to become disenamored with the media and less trusting of what the media presents to them. If even the news has to have a political slant then how can you trust the news? It becomes propaganda for the right and the left extremes and basically worthless. I do like the Jim Lehrer news program... (I think that is the name of it). Of all the news shows I see, that is the one that does the best job of stating the facts without passing judgment. I can watch that and draw my own conclusions...
One final annoyance I have felt regarding the news media. It is about the Dick Cheney incident. Again, because the press is mainly composed of more liberal thinkers that have vilified Dick Cheney and portrayed him as this secretive, evil, plotter out to crush the world, they talked of the "cover-up" that occurred after Mr. Cheney accidentally shot his friend in the face. Can you imagine that you were hunting, shot your friend on accident, and saw him fall? Psychologically, that is scarring to a person. That is a hard thing to cope with, and extremely difficult to get over. Now add to that the knowledge that when the information does get out, the family of the victim is going to be harassed by the media hounds, that it is going to be portrayed as a cold calculated act, that late-night shows are going to make jokes for weeks about what possibly was the most traumatic experience of your life...how eager would you be to go to the media? I don't recall the amount of time that passed before the victim's sister talked with Mr. Cheney about releasing the news to the media...whether it was the next day or two days later, but Mr. Cheney, after coming to more to grips with what he had done, and knowing that his friend probably wouldn't have serious lasting effect, felt it was the right thing to do as well. Of course, when she told the media, the initial reports were that Mr. Cheney had shot his friend in the face with a high-powered rifle as opposed to a small-bored shotgun with light pellets designed to kill doves, but not damage the meat excessively...the media just almost always gets it wrong in their attempt to glamorize or sensationalize stories.
I have to get home to the kids so I will go now...
Oh, one more thing...to show my bi-partisan nature, I also felt it was ridiculous how the Republicans sensationalized the Clinton impeachment trials, etc. etc. etc.
Too bad we are the "entertain-me" generation...if we didn't require being "entertained" to get our attention, maybe the news would be more balanced....more boring, but more balanced...Then we could get the truth.
