Over at the He-Man Terrorist Hater’s Club, there’s an interesting debate about why doctors are “overrepresented” in terrorist circles.
You don’t have to be a statistician to find fault with the basic premise of this argument, but never mind that. The data ignored at the Corner aren’t nearly as interesting as the theories conjured up to replace them, which comprise a royal road to the conservatarian unconscious.
For instance, here's the theory offered by Michael Ledeen:
I think it has something to do with what Mel Brooks once referred to as "that total indifference to pain and suffering" that is necessary to be a good doctor. You have to be "clinical" about all that, because you can't afford to have your judgment swayed by real sympathy with the sufferer.This is dreamwork of a very high order. Ledeen begins with the false belief that good doctors are totally indifferent to the pain and suffering of people they’re attempting to heal, and leaps from there to the conclusion that they have an enviable headstart when it comes to murdering complete strangers.
It doesn’t make any sense, but it doesn’t have to. Questions are simply an invitation to say what you were already thinking. Ask Fred Phelps who broke off the Venus de Milo’s arms, and he’ll tell you God did it because He hates fags. Ask Michael Ledeen to explain why so many terrorists are doctors, and he’ll tell you it’s because you can’t let human sympathy get in the way of killing people who deserve it.
Speaking of which, let’s revisit Ledeen's famous comment about the need for all-consuming war in the Middle East:
One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.Admirably clinical, isn't it? Perhaps Ledeen should’ve been a doctor.