At first, the possibility that the latest hacking story might add another bit of evidence for use by the liberals to make the assertion that the Conservatives have gone completely mad, seemed to be just another routine incident indicating that the Conservatives had done something else that was vile and reprehensible; but then we took a closer look at it our blood ran cold. Not just very afraid like the moment when you realize that the car you are driving is going to do a roll-over and you are probably going to die, but the “scared silly” reaction a person would get when he realizes that he is dealing with a cold-blooded murderer who makes “Rudy the Red” seem like someone who engaged in frat-boy pranks.
We don’t mean intriguing like when AP in Reno asked if we could pull a head shot out of the negative used for a group photo that “ran a few weeks ago” because one of the people in the shot had been indicted for murder.
We don’t mean the “he really means it” moment when one of the guys, who was a high school classmate, threatens to arrest another member of the class on the family’s front porch because the new lawman doesn’t appreciate something that was just said.
We mean the “this guy your are being introduced to is subject to arrest in a foreign country for war crimes” type of moment.
The psychological implications of this new “e-mails reveal” scandal are truly of the “bone chilling” level if they are examined closely.
On Thursday, February 10, 2011, we scurried back to our writer’s hovel to hear the first hour of the Mike Malloy radio show because we wanted to hear what the substitute (Brad of the Brad Blog) host would say about the plight of the Teamsters. When he started to detail the facts for the United States Chamber of Commerce Dirty Tricks story, we thought that the basic <I>modus operandi</I> for the caper sounded amazingly similar to what the defenders of Dan Rather said when he was discredited. We only got to hear one hour because the San Francisco station cut away at 7 p.m. PST for a sports broadcast. (Could there be a conservative plot to buy air time on Green Radio for UCB women’s basketball games and thereby shut down the best liberal talk show for two hours or is that just another example of this columnist’s usual lunatic conspiracy theories way of thinking?)
According to Brad and other sources found online on Friday, the basic conservative strategy being employed now is to feed a liberal doctored evidence for a potential scandal that would have embarrassing consequences for the conservatives, and then, after the story is published, to reveal that the cooked up story was phony and the shocking revelation that the story is bogus thereby discredits the reporter, his publication, show, or web site in particular and journalism in general.
What if, we asked ourselves, the psychological phenomenon known as “projection” is in play here? Projection means that a person projects his personality onto everyone else. Thus if a person were a pathological liar he would assume that everyone else in the world was one too.
There is a disturbing stealth warning at work in the new revelations. If someone, who is a pathological liar manipulates a reporter into a vulnerable position and rigs the fact checking process to help the sting operation achieve its goal and relies on gullibility for “proof” that another person is dishonest; then why isn’t the conniving nature of the deception self evident to a person thinking rationally?
If the pathological liar is so thoroughly committed to the sting operation that he doesn’t see the basic dishonesty inherent in his ploy, he will fool himself and only paid teabag operatives will “act” as if they have been convinced by the charade. When it becomes obvious that they are fooling themselves, one has to ask what the successful self-deception reveals about their inner psychology. Have they completely lost touch with reality and, if so, what can be done to “treat the patient”?
[Note: How does a pathological liar differ from a compulsive liar? Hypothetical case: a young lady leaves the dirty dishes in the sink and goes out for an afternoon of shopping. When she returns the dishes have been cleaned and put in the drying rack. She asks her boyfriend, who has been there all the while, if he washed the dishes.
A compulsive liar will say “No.” and any questions about the illogical response will be ignored. A pathological liar, such as the husband portrayed in the movie “Gaslight” would say: “You did them! Don’t you remember that you did them just before you went shopping?” A compulsive liar lies because he has to tell fibs. A pathological liar uses lies to achieve an ultimate goal.]
Liberal victims will, like O. J. at a pretrial press conference, look like a poor example of amateur theatrics in their righteous indignation regarding the shoddy kindergarten level shenanigans. (If the glove doesn’t fit; you must acquit! Do you think that maybe the goddamn thing had shrunk while it was improperly stored in the evidence locker?) The histrionics will be denounced as a pathetic example of the manifestation of a desperate conspiracy nut seeking group acceptance.
Isn’t the “conspiracy theory!” rebuttal a variation of the “I’m not lying; you are!” line of reasoning? Doesn’t the conspiracy theory rebuttal work just as well as Monty Python’s debating tactic of contradicting everything?
What is the mental health of someone who will prey on gullibility to foster the perception that the prank’s victim is actually the liar? If they have convinced only themselves of the validity of their frat boy joke, doesn’t that indicate that they have completely lost touch with reality? Isn’t that another way of saying that they have gone TFI (i.e. gone totally bonkers) as in: “I’d like you to meet my friend who lives with his “family” out on the Spawn ranch. Say ‘how do you do?’ to Charlie Manson!”
Didn’t we see a news story asserting that Karl Rove is engineering the effort to “get” Julian Assange? Isn’t every man, woman, and child in Amereica supposed to think that Assange is a lying, cheatin’ double dealin’ guy who isn’t really entitled to a freedom of the press defense? Isn’t that the “I’m not lying; you are!” argument in action?
Where will this string of discredited journalist stings end? Isn’t the snide response of “at the Cathedral of Light ceremony” yet another example of the “you are a conspiracy nut, lying SOB if you suspect recent events are from a hypothetical Rove playbook for engineering a 2012 win for JEB” way lefties think?
Would Dr. Hannibal Lecter hesitate to weave a web of lies just to play an “April Fool” joke on Edward R. Murrow? Might that effort have to be a very elaborate sting? “Look in Raspail’s car” obscure clues in return for . . . a few innocuous jail house privileges?
Is it worth a journalist’s time to quibble over these “done deal” issues?
The definition of the word “rape”?
The problem with the Social Security Program?
The simultaneous belief that life is sacred and that abortion is murder and simultaneously advocate that death panels will become a proper “budget cutting” strategy because they would eliminate futile expenses for a sick people who will die soon anyway?
Is double think here or are teabaggers starting to emulate my friend who proclaims that the voices in his head have the “call waiting” feature?
If tax cuts for the rich didn’t produce new jobs during the eight years of the Bush Reign of Terror, then how can they be expected to produce jobs if Obama extends those tax breaks for two more years?
Did IBM really replace all those old “Think” signs with new ones that say: “Obey!”?
Did George W. Bush go AWAL?
Can teabaggers comprehend a column – chock full of obscure arcane and esoteric cultural references – that mocks their heroes? For that matter, can any of the Journalism professors at UCB?
Did poppy Bush deserve a court martial hearing for bailing out of his Avenger bomber?
Last, and certainly not least, what can be done to convince Republicans that Superman doesn’t maintain his John Boener type hair style by going to the barber regularly for a hair cut?
How can any discredited journalist be taken seriously when they address the Republican agenda?
If Republicans are guilty of being pathological liars (AKA <I>pseudologia fantastica</I>), then isn’t it quite logical to conclude that the comedians are correct when they say that to correctly understand what a Republican is saying, just assume that the truth is the exact opposite of what is being said.
Wasn’t the Republican mindset revealed when George W. Bush said: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . won’t get fooled again!” Republicans are people who are fully convinced that they are compassionate, conservative Christians who can not (by Divine Commandment) lie. They can only be victims of disingenuous journalists. Would a compassionate conservative Christian cancel school nutrition programs for economic reasons?
Now the disk jockey will play Johnny Cash’s “The Long Black Veil,” the Rolling Stones’ notorious never released “contractual obligation” album (available only in bootleg editions) with the naughty title, and (speaking of getting fooled) “Sweet Transvestite” from the Rocky Horror Picture Show. We have to go and meet a secret source who has promised to give the World’s Laziest Journalist a clandestine copy of a coroner’s report that might provide valuable clues for the mystery surrounding the suicide of Geli Raubal. (How could she kill herself using a pistol that was always in the possession of her uncle?) Have a “psst, wanna have an exclusive on some secret material that will break a new scandal” type week.