Monday, June 28, 2004
Books on Blogs
Are listed at All Consuming, a website that links here, sort of a Blog Bestseller central.
John Kerry Bores from Within
Andrew Sullivan has a masterful analysis of John Kerry's election strategy. He says Kerry can "bore" his way to victory. It just might work.
To Saddam's prisoners, US abuse seems 'a joke'
Tip of the hat to Tim Blair for this article from Lebanon's Daily Star.
Mark Steyn on Bill Clinton
"Somewhere along the way, "My Life" morphs seamlessly from Bill's relations to other people's relations. One minute the old schmoozer is in the Ozarks glad-handing a "segregationist optometrist" (they didn't see eye to eye) and a great-aunt who has the biggest melons in Arkansas; the next he's glad-handing the nephew of Sherman Billingsley, owner of the Stork Club. The day after that, he's in ethics class helping out his new buddy, King Faisal's nephew Prince Turki, later the deeply sinister longtime head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service and now ambassador in London. This is ethics class in Georgetown, I believe, not at Miss Marie Purkins's School for Little Folks. But even so, where's Michael Moore when you need a documentary exposé of the murky decades-old ties between the House of Saud and the House of Bill?"
The rest is online at OpinionJournal.
The rest is online at OpinionJournal.
In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong
I just started reading this book, but already feel like recommending it to anyone who would like some background into the signficance of terrorism. It is Amin Malouf's In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong.
Justin Frank's "Bush on the Couch" and the APA Goldwater Rule
Harper Collins, Michael Moore's publisher (curiously, a division of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, something Moore neglected to mention in "Farenheit 9/11") has a new Bush-bashing book out, by a psychiatrist who claims to have psychoanalyzed the President, although he never treated him.
The books is Bush On the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President by Justin A. Frank, M.D
One of our readers emailed us that the American Psychiatric Association prohibits any professional analyst from making a psychiatric judgement without personally examining a patient. He asked if such behavior is unethical.
We looked into the question. Yes, such behavior is unethical.
It is banned not only because it is not scientific, but also because it might cause the entire field of psychoanalysis to be held in disrepute, and perhaps even face legal liability. The APA rule, called the "Goldwater Rule," was adopted after Barry Goldwater sued for libel, when "Fact" magazine published a survey of psychiatrists who said he was crazy in 1964. Goldwater won.
Here is the relevant history from The Politics of Stigma:
"In October 1964, in an effort to discredit presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, the publisher of the now defunct 'Fact' magazine published the results of a survey he had commissioned in which more than 1,189 of the 2,417 psychiatrists answered 'no' to the question, 'Is Barry Goldwater psychologically fit to be President of the United States?' The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the American Medical Association assailed the survey as 'yellow journalism,' with the APA noting that:
"By attaching the stigma of extreme political partisanship to the psychiatric profession as a whole in the heated climate of the current political campaign, Fact has in effect administered a low blow to all who would advance the treatment and care of the mentally ill of America."
Subsequently, the APA adopted what it called 'the Goldwater Rule' which forbids doctors from offering a psychiatric opinion on a public figure unless the psychiatrist has personally treated the official and has authorization to break patient-doctor confidentiality. Although it is difficult to know with any certainty the effect of any one factor on a political campaign, it appears that the incident contributed to Mr. Goldwater's defeat in the presidential election. He did, however, successfully sue the magazine's publisher, becoming one of the few public figures to win such a libel suit."
Here are some of Frank's psychological findings, as they appear on the Harper-Collins website:
*Bush's false sense of omnipotence, instilled within him during childhood and emboldened by his deep investment in fundamentalist religion
*The president's history of untreated alcohol abuse, and the questions it raises about denial, impairment, and the enabling streak in our culture
*The growing anecdotal evidence that Bush may suffer from dyslexia, ADHD, and other thought disorders
*His comfort living outside the law, defying international law in his presidency as boldly as he once defied DUI statutes and military reporting requirements
*His love-hate relationship with his father, and how it triggered a complex and dangerous mix of feelings including yearning, rivalry, anger, and sadism
Frank concludes: "Bush's rigid and simplistic thought patterns, paranoia, and megalomania -- and how they have driven him to invent adversariesw light on an administration whose record of violence and cruelty seems increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center. Insightful and accessible, courageous and controversial, Bush on the Couch tackles the question no one seems willing to ask: Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?"
It is pretty clear that, if the blurb on the Harper Collins website is accurate, Frank has violated the APA "Goldwater Rule." He is bringing shame on the psychiatric profession by politicizing the psychoanalytic method, in a manner not unlike Soviet psychiatrists who diagnosed political disssidents as insane, in order to lock them up in mental hospitals.
Now the question is: what will the American Psychiatric Association do?
A set of APA ethics rules can be found here.
The books is Bush On the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President by Justin A. Frank, M.D
One of our readers emailed us that the American Psychiatric Association prohibits any professional analyst from making a psychiatric judgement without personally examining a patient. He asked if such behavior is unethical.
We looked into the question. Yes, such behavior is unethical.
It is banned not only because it is not scientific, but also because it might cause the entire field of psychoanalysis to be held in disrepute, and perhaps even face legal liability. The APA rule, called the "Goldwater Rule," was adopted after Barry Goldwater sued for libel, when "Fact" magazine published a survey of psychiatrists who said he was crazy in 1964. Goldwater won.
Here is the relevant history from The Politics of Stigma:
"In October 1964, in an effort to discredit presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, the publisher of the now defunct 'Fact' magazine published the results of a survey he had commissioned in which more than 1,189 of the 2,417 psychiatrists answered 'no' to the question, 'Is Barry Goldwater psychologically fit to be President of the United States?' The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the American Medical Association assailed the survey as 'yellow journalism,' with the APA noting that:
"By attaching the stigma of extreme political partisanship to the psychiatric profession as a whole in the heated climate of the current political campaign, Fact has in effect administered a low blow to all who would advance the treatment and care of the mentally ill of America."
Subsequently, the APA adopted what it called 'the Goldwater Rule' which forbids doctors from offering a psychiatric opinion on a public figure unless the psychiatrist has personally treated the official and has authorization to break patient-doctor confidentiality. Although it is difficult to know with any certainty the effect of any one factor on a political campaign, it appears that the incident contributed to Mr. Goldwater's defeat in the presidential election. He did, however, successfully sue the magazine's publisher, becoming one of the few public figures to win such a libel suit."
Here are some of Frank's psychological findings, as they appear on the Harper-Collins website:
*Bush's false sense of omnipotence, instilled within him during childhood and emboldened by his deep investment in fundamentalist religion
*The president's history of untreated alcohol abuse, and the questions it raises about denial, impairment, and the enabling streak in our culture
*The growing anecdotal evidence that Bush may suffer from dyslexia, ADHD, and other thought disorders
*His comfort living outside the law, defying international law in his presidency as boldly as he once defied DUI statutes and military reporting requirements
*His love-hate relationship with his father, and how it triggered a complex and dangerous mix of feelings including yearning, rivalry, anger, and sadism
Frank concludes: "Bush's rigid and simplistic thought patterns, paranoia, and megalomania -- and how they have driven him to invent adversariesw light on an administration whose record of violence and cruelty seems increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center. Insightful and accessible, courageous and controversial, Bush on the Couch tackles the question no one seems willing to ask: Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?"
It is pretty clear that, if the blurb on the Harper Collins website is accurate, Frank has violated the APA "Goldwater Rule." He is bringing shame on the psychiatric profession by politicizing the psychoanalytic method, in a manner not unlike Soviet psychiatrists who diagnosed political disssidents as insane, in order to lock them up in mental hospitals.
Now the question is: what will the American Psychiatric Association do?
A set of APA ethics rules can be found here.
Michael Moore Attacks Newsweek's Michael Isikoff
He essentially is calling Isikoff a liar. This dispute might be interesting, since Isikoff was the reporter who told the world about Monica Lewinsky. You can read Moore's blast here
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Uzbekistan Update
For those interested in Uzbekistan, I have an account of human rights de-certification hearings on Capitol Hill last Thursday in The Argus.
Belmont Club
Tip of the hat to Instapundit for linking to the Belmont Club, a reality check on war coverage, among other things.
Getting Away with Murder...In the Peace Corps
In another excellent item in the Washington Post Book Review, Richard Lipez reviews Philip Weiss's real-life murder mystery about the Peace Corps, A Killer Among Us. Set in Tonga, in 1975, the story sounds so incredible, it must be true. A sample quote:
"Tongans were, if anything, far more inclined to find American customs and morality unfathomable in the immediate aftermath of Gardner's murder. The Peace Corps seemed to care more about Priven than his victim, or her friends, or her confused and distraught family back in the United States. Peace Corps volunteers have no diplomatic immunity, and the local authorities wanted to follow Tongan law, which meant putting Priven to trial under their jurisdiction and either imprisoning or hanging him. The Peace Corps, suddenly not so respectful of local customs, just wanted to get Priven out of the hands of these backward Third Worlders..."
You can buy the book here.
"Tongans were, if anything, far more inclined to find American customs and morality unfathomable in the immediate aftermath of Gardner's murder. The Peace Corps seemed to care more about Priven than his victim, or her friends, or her confused and distraught family back in the United States. Peace Corps volunteers have no diplomatic immunity, and the local authorities wanted to follow Tongan law, which meant putting Priven to trial under their jurisdiction and either imprisoning or hanging him. The Peace Corps, suddenly not so respectful of local customs, just wanted to get Priven out of the hands of these backward Third Worlders..."
You can buy the book here.
Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 is not so hot...
Last night, I saw Farenheit 9/11. We had been present outside the theatre at the premiere, by accident, a few days earlier. We had seen the crowds of prominent Democrats and Washington celebrities, the limousines, the layers of security, some looking like gangsters, who surrounded Moore, wearing formal attire, not a cap and blue jeans, as he was whisked into his limousine.
But after seeing the film, it is clear there was a lot more sizzle than steak. Moore isn't a threat to the Republic, he's not even a threat to Bush. Chris Hitchens can fix himself another drink and relax. As a good friend told me, it's nothing new, she saw this film before, during the Vietnam war. We know how it ends..
If I were a Republican, I would screen the film for President Bush and the re-election campaign right away. For Farenheint 9/11 is a damp squib, despite all its awards and all the hype. It does have a few funny bits of irony. But overall, there is just not a lot there. It will not make a difference in the 2004 election campaign.
If this is the worst the opposition can come up with, Bush stands a fighting chance to win.
Some themes in the film touch upon legitimate issues, such as special treatment for the Bin Laden family, Homeland Security foul-ups, and a lack of preparedness before 9/11.
And Moore does make a point about politicians needing to put their children in the military. The only Congressman who talks to Moore agrees on this point, telling him, "I don't disagree with you."
But Bush can fix this problem right away. The Roosevelt kids fought in WWII, and Bush might ask his daughters to consider signing up, at least to work in military hospitals with the wounded. It would be good for morale, and help their image, too.
That said, the rest of the film is a bunch of innuendo, conspiracy mongering, and cheap shots. Every President takes vacations. Bill Clinton played a lot of golf, among other recreations. You can also watch Bill Clinton shaking hands with Saudi princes, a lot of shady deals went on in Arkansas, just like Texas. So there is nothing special about any of the scandals. And many of the American soldiers who appear seem perfectly decent, ordinary folks caught up in a hellish battlefield. Well, Sherman said "War is hell." Obviously, it is.
There are clearly some problems, but overall, the troops don't actually look panicked or demoralized, despite Moore's attempt to convey that impression.
One subtext--that America went to war primarily to increase sales of Bradley fighting vehicles by Carlyle Group subsidiary United Defense, and to make the world safe for UNOCAL's Afghan pipline, or for Halliburton's defense contracts is just ridiculous.
The opening charge in the film, that Fox News delivered the 2000 election to Bush because a relative worked there, is just plain silly. That's not how our system works. And in the end, not one Democratic Senator voted to overturn the result, and as the opening sequence shows, Al Gore signed off on the transfer personally. Why would Al Gore be in on the fix that deprived him of the Presidency?
In the end Farenheit 9/11 is so primitive and ignorant that a even John Kerry supporter who saw the film with us (interestingly, there were Kerry recruiters outside the movie theatre, every bit as aggressive for their own cause as two the Marine recruiters appearing in the film) thought it important to note that Michael Moore never graduated from college and doesn't really know very much about world history, culture or politics. So don't expect too much. Another person in our group said that she actually felt sympathetic to President Bush after watching it.
Me too.
But after seeing the film, it is clear there was a lot more sizzle than steak. Moore isn't a threat to the Republic, he's not even a threat to Bush. Chris Hitchens can fix himself another drink and relax. As a good friend told me, it's nothing new, she saw this film before, during the Vietnam war. We know how it ends..
If I were a Republican, I would screen the film for President Bush and the re-election campaign right away. For Farenheint 9/11 is a damp squib, despite all its awards and all the hype. It does have a few funny bits of irony. But overall, there is just not a lot there. It will not make a difference in the 2004 election campaign.
If this is the worst the opposition can come up with, Bush stands a fighting chance to win.
Some themes in the film touch upon legitimate issues, such as special treatment for the Bin Laden family, Homeland Security foul-ups, and a lack of preparedness before 9/11.
And Moore does make a point about politicians needing to put their children in the military. The only Congressman who talks to Moore agrees on this point, telling him, "I don't disagree with you."
But Bush can fix this problem right away. The Roosevelt kids fought in WWII, and Bush might ask his daughters to consider signing up, at least to work in military hospitals with the wounded. It would be good for morale, and help their image, too.
That said, the rest of the film is a bunch of innuendo, conspiracy mongering, and cheap shots. Every President takes vacations. Bill Clinton played a lot of golf, among other recreations. You can also watch Bill Clinton shaking hands with Saudi princes, a lot of shady deals went on in Arkansas, just like Texas. So there is nothing special about any of the scandals. And many of the American soldiers who appear seem perfectly decent, ordinary folks caught up in a hellish battlefield. Well, Sherman said "War is hell." Obviously, it is.
There are clearly some problems, but overall, the troops don't actually look panicked or demoralized, despite Moore's attempt to convey that impression.
One subtext--that America went to war primarily to increase sales of Bradley fighting vehicles by Carlyle Group subsidiary United Defense, and to make the world safe for UNOCAL's Afghan pipline, or for Halliburton's defense contracts is just ridiculous.
The opening charge in the film, that Fox News delivered the 2000 election to Bush because a relative worked there, is just plain silly. That's not how our system works. And in the end, not one Democratic Senator voted to overturn the result, and as the opening sequence shows, Al Gore signed off on the transfer personally. Why would Al Gore be in on the fix that deprived him of the Presidency?
In the end Farenheit 9/11 is so primitive and ignorant that a even John Kerry supporter who saw the film with us (interestingly, there were Kerry recruiters outside the movie theatre, every bit as aggressive for their own cause as two the Marine recruiters appearing in the film) thought it important to note that Michael Moore never graduated from college and doesn't really know very much about world history, culture or politics. So don't expect too much. Another person in our group said that she actually felt sympathetic to President Bush after watching it.
Me too.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism
Today's Washington Post Book Review gives a rave review to Anonymous's (AKA Mike) new book on the CIA and war on terror, by Richard Clarke.
Quote: "Anonymous has painted a detailed picture of that enemy -- and, despite the administration's ubiquitous phrase, it is not 'terrorism,' faceless and abstract. Terrorism is a tactic. The enemy is 'an Islamic insurgency,' a multinational movement to replace governments in the Islamic world with fundamentalist theocracies..."
You can order the book from Amazon here.
Quote: "Anonymous has painted a detailed picture of that enemy -- and, despite the administration's ubiquitous phrase, it is not 'terrorism,' faceless and abstract. Terrorism is a tactic. The enemy is 'an Islamic insurgency,' a multinational movement to replace governments in the Islamic world with fundamentalist theocracies..."
You can order the book from Amazon here.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Handicap Sheet for 2004
I saw Charlie Cook speak at an event at the Women's National Democratic Club yesterday. He said that right now, the 2004 election is too close to call. Bush is helped by the economy and hurt by Iraq. Kerry is basically a protest candidate without much personal support, but since the election is a referendum on the incumbent, it doesn't much matter that he has "less personality than an ashtray." Cook believes John Edwards is the only candidate for Vice President who could help Kerry's national poll numbers, but that Kerry does not like Edwards personally, and is more comfortable with someone like Dick Gephardt, who would not gain him a single vote. So, he can't predict what Kerry will do. Overall, the most even-handed and fair political analysis I've heard in Washington. No wonder he is everyone's guru (there were 2 pollsters on the panel with him, a Republican and a Democrat, who praised him equally). To read Cook's election analysis for yourself, just click on The Cook Political Report
Afghanistan's Bactrian Gold
Reuters reports that museums around the world are lining up to host a tour of Afghanistan's Bactrian gold.
Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam & the Future of America
Anonymous' (AKA Mike) book about the CIA, Osama Bin Laden, and the Bush administration is on sale at Amazon.com
Friday, June 25, 2004
Natan Sharansky Online
"I think it is a dangerous double standard when it is expected that every piece of territory that will be under the control of the Palestinian Authority will be free of Jews, while it goes without saying that Arabs are an integral part of all the territories which are controlled by Israel. This means that from the beginning we are speaking about the coexistence of very different types of societies - one a democratic Israel and the other a dictatorship based on racial cleansing. I don't believe in this type of peace and this was one of my main objections to the disengagement plan."
The entire Haaretz Q & A is now online.
The entire Haaretz Q & A is now online.
A Brief History of Nestorian Christians
"By the middle of the sixth century, Nestorians churches had sprung up all over Asia, from Sri Lanka to Mongolia and from Egypt to China, and everywhere in between, including Turkestan, India, Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Like many missionaries confronted with illiterate societies, the Nestorians were led to create writing systems for the languages of peoples they wished to convert, such as Mongolian, Uighur, Sogdian, and Manchu, all based on Syriac...."
Read all about it in The Argus: Nestorians and the Legend of Prester John
Read all about it in The Argus: Nestorians and the Legend of Prester John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)