Category Archives: Politics on the left

The night of the living dead

Posted on by
Reply

Where does this go? Is it just more of the process that GWB was selected and not elected, or do they really mean to turn over the election result. The latest:

PODESTA QUESTIONS ELECTION LEGITIMACY…
White House moves to undermine victory…
Media try to delegitimize…
CNN HOST: Trump win a ‘national emergency’…
CONFUSION: Earnest says CHINA did hacking…
CIA pushes ‘conspiracy theory’…

CHILL JILL: Judge rejects Pennsylvania recount…
Completed Wisconsin recount WIDENS Trump margin…

It’s the first one that is the most sinister. The actual title at the link is, Clinton campaign backs call for intelligence briefing before Electoral College vote.

Hillary Clinton’s top political adviser John Podesta said the campaign is supporting an effort by members of the Electoral College to request an intelligence briefing on foreign intervention in the presidential election.

“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” Podesta said in a statement Monday. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”

“Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump,” he said. “Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”

Podesta’s statement is the first public statement from the Clinton campaign raising questions about the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s victory.

The claims are groundless and the election is over, unless the electoral college decides to go rogue. To understand just how groundless any of this is, there is this: Former UK Ambassador Blasts “CIA’s Blatant Lies”, Shows “A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims”.

It is becoming impossible to trust any official source of information in the West and not just the media

Posted on by
Reply

A follow-up from The Russians are Coming!. This is titled, Former UK Ambassador Blasts “CIA’s Blatant Lies”, Shows “A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims”. The writer is Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was the Rector of the University of Dundee. Who can you trust, but certainly he seems more credible than any of the official sources who imply everything but provide evidence for nothing.

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.

It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.

In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.

We really do live in frightening times. Who can you trust? And it is madness to find that WikiLeaks are more authoritative than the actual authorities. Because even if you and I have a counter-source of information, 99% of the people we deal with do not, and don’t want it either.

The link was provided by OldOzzie with thanks.

If only we were as smart as they are

Posted on by
Reply

The reality is that the left is more obtuse, less informed and cruelly indifferent to the social and political fates of those into whose hands entire nations fall. Vide Cuba and Venezuela for recent examples. What follows is typical snide and superior non-humour from the left: Conan’s Spoof Phone Calls Between Barack Obama And Donald Trump Will Never Get Old

What if Donald Trump kept bugging Barack Obama for advice?

Conan O’Brien imagines the kind of things the president-elect may be asking the current commander in chief in a series of hilarious spoof telephone calls.

From questioning whether Kazakhstan is a meat dish to complaining about the length of the Mexican border, Obama is luckily on hand to answer each of Trump’s queries.

These are the headings of the issues Trump will need assistance from Obama to deal with. The list is typical of the left’s ideological vision since they must imagine these are areas Obama has handled with aplomb and distinction.

1 On Presidential Medals Of Honor And Kazakhstan
2 On Gifts, Candy And The Mexican Border
3 On The Nuclear Codes, Iran And Jackie Chan
4 On Taiwan And The State Of The Union Address
5 On Time’s ‘Person Of The Year’ And The Mexican Wall

They have lost for now, but their self-contained ignorance makes them perennially dangerous. They have no sources of information outside their self-constructed bubbles and refuse to let any shards of reality disturb their information flow.

The most depressing part is that this article has been sent to me by an old school friend who has lived in California for the past thirty year or so, and sees this as a perfect representation of the actual Donald Trump. I have been trying to warn him off this stuff but he has continued it through since the election of GWB, always assuming I am in complete agreement with the things he sends. It is, in itself, their inability even to slightly appreciate that there are other points of view that may be the most tragic part in dealing with such people.

Election fraud American style

Posted on by
Reply

The re-count in Michigan has been brought to an end, but that is not the real story. This is the real story: REVEALED: Michigan Recount Uncovers Serious Voter Fraud in Detroit- VOTES COUNTED UP TO 6 TIMES. None of this will be reported in any of the mainstream media. The details:

In Detroit, one of the chief ways they engage in voter fraud is to count the same ballot MULTIPLE times. This is just ONE way. They also do some shady stuff with absentee ballots etc.

Once they started the Michigan recount in earnest, and knowing he would be exposed, the Detroit City Clerk Daniel Baxter all of a sudden started claiming that the optical scanners which read the paper ballots did not work the day of the election. Baxter blamed the discrepancies on decade-old voting machines. That is his cover story. Nothing like this was mentioned until he realized their voting fraud scheme would be detected.

Baxter’s claim is that, when trying to push the ballots through the readers, the ballots would be stuck and they’d have to push them through again thus ‘ACCIDENTALLY’ resulting in a double count. He says the poll workers sometimes ‘FORGET’ to adjust the machine count and instead let the ballot count twice.

Want more:

In one Detroit Precinct, a recount team was given a box of ballots with an unbroken seal where everything appeared proper and in place. The tag on the box said there were 306 ballots. The book said 306, and the ticket said 306, so that means there should be 306 paper ballots on the box. When they pulled out the ballots, there were exactly FIFTY paper ballots in a locked sealed box that again was supposed to have 306. The official canvasser approved count for this precinct was 306. For FIFTY ballots.

It looks like Detroit counts each vote more than SIX TIMES! No wonder they get such high turnout rates!

Here’s another story dealing with the the vote counting fraud: Detroit Voter Fraud so Extensive Half of Initial Votes Ineligible for Recount…. And the details:

Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.

The level of fraud is staggering. Another swamp that will need draining over the next four years.

It’s almost unimaginable

Posted on by
Reply

Canada is now run by people madder than the governments of South Australia and Tasmania combined. This is something we need to fear because the crazies are everywhere. This is a quite astonishing interview whose title doesn’t really pick just how insane what he is dealing with is: ‘We’re teaching university students lies’ – An interview with Dr Jordan Peterson. It’s not about lies as in untruths. It is about insanity where I cannot fathom where people are coming from. Bill C-16 is an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. Think of giving Jillian Triggs the right to put you in jail for not using the right pronouns. Read the whole lot, but here is something to get you started.

You’ve painted a pretty bleak picture for the future.

There are bleak things going on. To start with, Bill C-16 writes social constructionism into the fabric of the law. Social constructionism is the doctrine that all human roles are socially constructed. They’re detached from the underlying biology and from the underlying objective world. So Bill C-16 contains an assault on biology and an implicit assault on the idea of objective reality. It’s also blatant in the Ontario Human Rights Commission policies and the Ontario Human Rights Act. It says identity is nothing but subjective. So a person can be male one day and female the next, or male one hour and female the next.

How do you see the future of public discourse in this country if we don’t reverse course on things like C-16?

I have no idea. I think that we’re in a time of chaos and anything can happen in a time of chaos. I don’t know what will happen at the university in the next week. There is a debate on Saturday at 9:30 in the morning. It’ll be live-cast on my YouTube channel. I have no idea what the consequences of the debate will be, I have no idea whether I’ll be teaching in January. The university has told me that that every time I insist that I won’t use those [gender neutral] pronouns, the probability that I’ll be teaching in January decreases.

Do you believe that you or others could be imprisoned for refusing to comply with these laws?

There’s no doubt about that. The human rights tribunals have been given the right to hold people in contempt. Well, you’re going to be in contempt if you don’t pay the fine. My opponents say ‘you’re just scare-mongering. We don’t really have that much power.’ Then why change the criminal code? Why put the hate speech amendments in there? The final word in law is incarceration. There is no question about this. When I made the video on September 27th, and I said, ‘probably making this video itself is illegal’. Not only that, the university is as responsible as I am for making it, because that’s in the human rights code. The university read the damned policies and had their lawyers scour it, and concluded exactly what I concluded. That’s why they sent me two warning letters. They’re on the hook for everything their employees say, whether or not the consequences of what they say were intentional or unintentional, regardless of whether or not there was a complaint.

Does that include things that my employees say in their private time?

It includes everything they say. It doesn’t matter whether people complain or not. Even if no one complains, or even if the effect is unintentional. The other thing that’s built into this law and the surrounding policies – and this is also increasingly the case in sexual harassment tribunals on university campuses which the [Ontario Premier Kathleen] Wynne government is pushing like mad – they’ve changed two legal principles. It’s not ‘innocent before being proven guilty,’ it’s ‘preponderance of evidence,’ and it’s not intent, it’s outcome. Those transformations are so far reaching, it’s almost unimaginable.

But only almost. It makes me sick to read, yet no one at home ever mentions a thing. My take from this is not that we should see Malcolm as a blessing, but that we should not tolerate his stupidities because they will lead to even worse.

Monumental error

Posted on by
Reply

A donation request I am going to ignore. It’s a joke, and I don’t really take pleasure in piling on Hillary since she is gone for all money. I only put it up because I think it is crucial to remember how monumentally rotten Obama was as president. I give him no marks for effort, since I think of him as nothing other than an Alinskite liar, with an incredible ill will towards the United States and the West in general. But it’s nice to read all the same.

Dear Friends:

I have the distinguished honor of being a member of the Committee to raise $50,000,000 for a monument to Hillary R. Clinton. We originally wanted to put her on Mt. Rushmore until we discovered there was not enough room for her two faces.

We then decided to erect a statue of Hillary in the Washington, D.C. Hall of Fame. We were in a quandary as to where the statue should be placed. It was not proper to place it beside the statue of George Washington, who never told a lie, or beside Barack Hussein Obama, who never told the truth, since Hillary could never tell the difference.

We finally decided to place it beside Christopher Columbus, the greatest Democrat of them all. He left not knowing where he was going, and when he got there he did not know where he was. He returned not knowing where he had been, and did it all on someone else’s money.

Thank you,
Hillary R. Clinton Monument Committee

P.S. The Committee has raised $2.16 so far.

My thanks to TMc for sending along.

Dealing with the despicable, disgusting, depraved and deranged

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t think I broke any friendships during this election and only one in 2012. It’s not me, of course. I am always ready and willing to discuss politics with anyone, any time, and usually in a civil way, even if they are idiots. Here are the ten from Dennis Prager’s list of 10 Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters From Their Lives.

1. Just like our universities shut out conservative ideas and speakers, more and more individuals on the left now shut out conservative friends and relatives as well as conservative ideas.

2. Many, if not most, leftists have been indoctrinated with leftism their entire lives.

This is easily shown.

There are far more conservatives who read articles, listen to and watch broadcasts of the left and have studied under left-wing teachers than there are people on the left who have read, listened to or watched anything of the right or taken classes with conservative instructors.

As a result, those on the left really believe that those on the right are all SIXHIRB: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted. Not to mention misogynistic and transphobic.

3. Most left-wing positions are emotion-based. That’s a major reason people who hold leftist views will sever relations with people they previously cared for or even loved. Their emotions (in this case, irrational fear and hatred) simply overwhelm them.

4. Since Karl Marx, leftists have loved ideas more than people. All Trump voters who have been cut off by children, in-laws and lifelong friends now know how true that is.

5. People on the right think that most people on the left are wrong; people on the left think that most people on the right are evil. Decades of labeling conservative positions as “hateful” and labeling conservative individuals as “sexist,” “intolerant,” “xenophobic,” “homophobic,” “racist” and “bigoted” have had their desired effect.

6. The left associates human decency not so much with personal integrity as with having correct — i.e. progressive — political positions. Therefore, if you don’t hold progressive positions, you lack decency. Ask your left-wing friends if they’d rather their high school son or daughter cheat on tests or support Trump.

7. Most individuals on the left are irreligious, so the commandment “Honor your father and your mother” means nothing to those who have cut off relations with parents because they voted for Trump.

8. Unlike conservatives, politics gives most leftists’ lives meaning. Climate change is a good example. For leftists, fighting carbon emissions means saving human existence on Earth. Now, how often does anyone get a chance to literally save the world? Therefore, to most leftists, if you voted for Trump, you have both negated their reason for living and are literally destroying planet Earth. Why would they have Thanksgiving or Christmas with such a person?

9. The left tends toward the totalitarian. And every totalitarian ideology seeks to weaken the bonds between children and parents. The left seeks to dilute parental authority and replace it with school authority and government authority. So when your children sever their bond with you because you voted for Trump, they are acting like the good totalitarians the left has molded.

10. While there are kind and mean individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, as a result of all of the above, there are more mean people on the left than on the right. What other word than “mean” would anyone use to describe a daughter who banished her parents from their grandchildren’s lives because of their vote?

I think “mean” is too good for them. Despicable, disgusting, depraved and deranged is much closer.

As good a marker of your politics as anything

Posted on by
Reply

castro-justin

Your attitude to Castro is a pretty exact measure of how out to lunch your political attitudes are. If you can find it in your heart to excuse any of what Castro has done since 1959 then you your beliefs are the very essence of what it means to be a fascist.

With Justin Trudeau, however, there is the possible excuse that he is showing paternal filial piety, but even so.

Investigating political madness

Posted on by
Reply

These are two sets of comments on the post at Instapundit on Maybe Their Mental Health Wasn’t That Good Before the Election, previously discussed here. The first set are actually four different comments made by “Gagdad Bob” which I have strung together.

The deeper structure of human nature hasn’t changed since the arrival of liberalism. Liberalism is a new way to be mentally ill, but not the illness as such. It is similar to how fear of aliens is a way to be paranoid. Paranoia has always existed, but the objects of paranoia change.

Being that I am a clinical psychologist who has seen countless liberals, I would say the majority have been just ignorant or of low intelligence. No need to reach for a complex explanation. The more activist kind — the true believers — are another story. For them, liberalism can be anything from a substitute religion to a massive defense mechanism to covert sociopathy. There’s no one-size-fits-all explanation.

I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they think they are doing good, but in fact are sadists. It reminds me of why Homer Simpson wanted to become a police officer: “because it combines my desire to help people with my desire to hurt them.”

If liberalism didn’t exist, the unconscious would invent it as an ideal way to embody and express so much pain and conflict. In so many ways it’s the perfect vehicle for a host of irrational psychological, spiritual, and existential issues, which is why it is so difficult to eradicate. It is immune to reason, the same way an illness is. (And yes, it is important to distinguish between the cynics at the top, the true believers in between, and the passive & manipulated masses below.)

This then is a comment put up by AndrewZ along similar lines.

Identity politics creates mental illness because it makes people paranoid. It teaches them to see other people not as individuals but as representatives of a category. The categories are organised into an elaborate hierarchy of victimhood and oppression and all social interactions are treated as an expression of the power relationships between the groups.

A person who has internalised this way of thinking will start to see everyone who belongs to one of the designated oppressor groups as a threat and will feel acutely uncomfortable in their presence. They will feel that they are surrounded by enemies who are just waiting for an opportunity to do something terrible to them. Since they have been trained to interpret everything they see and hear in terms of power relationships they will see threatening messages everywhere, and their heightened self-consciousness will make it seem as though it’s all aimed at them personally.

The SJWs are so full of rage and so ready to lash out because they really do think that they are under constant attack. They need to scream and shout to relieve the unbearable psychological pressure of living in a state of permanent siege. That’s also why many leftist writers have such a breathless, frantic style full of hyperbole and wild accusations. It’s the desperate strung-out voice of the paranoiac, surrounded by phantom menaces that nobody else can see.

To somebody in that state of mind, it would be impossible to conceive of a rich white male Republican – the apex predator of oppression – wanting to do anything other than establish a brutal tyranny. So naturally they go into a state of panic when such a person is elected President.

For me, it is all just a phenomenon which is beyond my understanding. That it is real and out there, of this I have no doubt. But it does make things much more difficult, and to me, these people really do seem deranged.

Socialism is a cult

Posted on by
Reply

Socialism is a cult rather than a series of rational beliefs. With the evidence of failure available at every turn, to hang on to the beliefs a typical socialist must hold about the world under socialism requires a form of distortion in one’s belief system that is so disorienting but nevertheless so intensely held that it is near impossible to change the minds of anyone holding such delusions. Looking at the sadness on the left after the death of Castro is a phenomenon that suggests serious detachment from reality. Like with global warming, there are no facts that matter. This is Scott Adams (i.e. Dilbert) picked up at Instapundit: ‘A Lesson in Cognitive Dissonance”.

Imagine you are one of the anti-Trump folks who believe we just elected a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, science-denying dictator. Let’s say that’s the movie playing in your mind. That’s some scary stuff.

Now imagine watching the news as Trump reveals in slow-motion that he’s flexible and pragmatic on just about everything. . . .

As Trump continues to demonstrate that he was never the incompetent monster his critics believed him to be, the critics will face an identity crisis. They either have to accept that they understand almost nothing about how the world works – because they got everything wrong about Trump – or they need to double-down on their current hallucination. Most of his critics will double-down. That’s how normal brains work.

And that brings us to our current situation. As Trump continues to defy all predictions from his critics, the critics need to maintain their self-images as the smart ones who saw this new Hitler coming. And that means you will see hallucinations like you have never seen. It will be epic.

The reason this will be so fun to watch is that we rarely get to see a situation in which the facts so vigorously violate a hallucination. Before Trump won the presidency everyone was free to imagine the future they expected. But as Trump continues to do one reasonable thing after another, his critics have a tough choice. They can either…

1. Reinterpret their self-images from wise to clueless.
or…
2. Generate an even stronger hallucination. (Cognitive dissonance.)

If Trump’s critics take the second option – and most of them will – it means you will see a lot of pretzel-logic of the type that is necessary hold onto the illusion that Trump is still a monster despite continuing evidence to the contrary.

And so onto the recounts. Socialists are liars whose only interest among those who lead such movements is power. Whether it is Venezuela, Cuba or the United States, they have nothing to offer other than illusion and sanctimony. No one, other than their leaders, has ever benefited from a socialist in government.

Let me also add this which I assume is satire except that is is from The Washington Post: I haven’t slept in my room since the election and it is posted under the heading, “Opinions”. It begins, but read it all since it is so well done:

Since the election, I haven’t slept in my dorm room once. I’ve slept on couches, futons, floors and unoccupied beds in my friends’ homes. At first, it came from a need to be with people who supported me and understood how scary this political moment is for young people who grew up under the liberal auspices of an Obama presidency and came of age politically in a time marked by progressive movements such as that of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But after I went home for clean clothes to find an anti-gay hate message written on my door, right next to a set of stickers spelling out “Vote 4 Hillary,” my couch-surfing took on new urgency. I was no longer searching for comfort from my peers — I was trying to preserve a sense of safety.

He is either very funny or insane, but it is so pitch perfect it is impossible to tell for sure which it is.

UPDATE: Turns out he’s insane. Read the comments on the article at the Washington Post. There you will not only others treating him sympathetically, but very few pointing out how psychologically damaged the writer of this article must be. I can hardly believe such people exist, never mind that the Washington Post is not embarrassed to give them space on their opinion page.