192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
layman
 
  -2  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 08:08 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

A very interesting interview by Brian Beutler of Steve Bannon biographer Joshua Green. You won't come out cheerful but you will be better informed
podcast interview here


Leave us all just face the indisputable stone-cold facts, eh: Steve Bannon, he ROCKS!
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 09:41 pm
@blatham,
Quote blatham:
Quote:
I just received word from Saab's daughter that Saab passed away on Sunday.

I'm so sorry to hear that. I thought Saab was wonderful.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 10:55 pm
@Blickers,
She really was...she was personable, curious and caring. She didn't seem to be ruled by stereotypes or negative reviews...she actually reached out to people. She must have had a much more optimistic view of human nature than I do. I just hope she knew how well she was regarded, just a lovely lovely woman.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 11:10 pm
Sessions seems to be an untouchable figure in the eyes of Breitbart - does Trump loose the ‘alt-right’ website's support?


Breitbart: Trump’s Attack on Sessions over Clinton Prosecution Highlights His Own ‘Weak’ Stance

Breitbart: Jeff Sessions’ Tenure at DOJ Marked by Progress on President Trump’s America First Agenda
glitterbag
 
  2  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 11:29 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Breitbart wants to call all the shots.....I have no idea what they might be up to.....I don't see them as a pro-free society group.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 11:52 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

How sad, she was an interesting woman, always enjoyed hearing her views. We also exchanged PM's, I'm going to miss her.....please tell her daughter that she had many friends on A2K...we will all miss her.

I don't remember Saab. Did she post here much?
roger
 
  2  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 11:57 pm
@snood,
Most commonly on the Brexit thread. She was also the go to on Scandinavia topics. She had other occasional subjects that interested her.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  -2  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 12:03 am
Monitoring Trump? Well, now shrinks weigh in:

Quote:
Psychiatry group tells members they can ignore ‘Goldwater rule’ and comment on Trump’s mental health

By SHARON BEGLEY @sxbegle JULY 25, 2017

A leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a longstanding rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures — even the president.

The statement, an email this month from the executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association to its 3,500 members, represents the first significant crack in the profession’s decades-old united front aimed at preventing experts from discussing the psychiatric aspects of politicians’ behavior. It will likely make many of its members feel more comfortable speaking openly about President Trump’s mental health.

The impetus for the email was “belief in the value of psychoanalytic knowledge in explaining human behavior,” said psychoanalytic association past president Dr. Prudence Gourguechon, a psychiatrist in Chicago. “We don’t want to prohibit our members from using their knowledge responsibly.”

That responsibility is especially great today, she told STAT, “since Trump’s behavior is so different from anything we’ve seen before” in a commander in chief.

An increasing number of psychologists and psychiatrists have denounced the restriction as a “gag rule” and flouted it, with some arguing they have a “duty to warn” the public about what they see as Trump’s narcissism, impulsivity, poor attention span, paranoia, and other traits that, they believe, impair his ability to lead.

Reporters, pundits, and government officials “have been stumbling around trying to explain Trump’s unusual behavior,” from his seemingly compulsive tweeting to his grandiosity, said Dr. Leonard Glass, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School. The rule against psychiatrists offering their analysis of the emotions, thought patterns, and beliefs underlying such behaviors, Glass said, robs the public “of our professional judgment and prevents us from communicating our understanding” of the president’s mental state.

Last week, in an essay in Psychiatric Times, Glass called the prohibition on such communication “an unacceptable infringement on my right and duty” to discuss issues “where the perspective of psychiatrists could be very relevant and enlightening.” He ended the essay by announcing his resignation from the American Psychiatric Association, which adopted the rule in 1973. He had been a member for 41 years.

Called the “Goldwater rule,” the prohibition on offering opinions about the mental state of public figures was adopted after some psychiatrists answered a 1964 survey on whether Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican presidential candidate that year, was mentally fit for the Oval Office. The rule states that it is unethical to offer a professional opinion about a public figure’s mental health, including the presence or absence of a disorder, without that person’s consent and without doing a standard examination. In March, the psychiatric association reaffirmed the rule.

The group acted despite growing criticism that the Goldwater rule is outdated and even unethical for preventing psychiatrists from pointing out behaviors that raise questions about a government official’s mental state. No other medical specialty has such a rule; cardiologists are not prohibited from offering their views of an official’s fainting spell, for instance, as long as they make clear that they have not examined the person.

Although opposition to the Goldwater rule has existed for years, it intensified with Trump’s candidacy and then election. In October, a book titled “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President” will be published.

“When the book comes out, there will be renewed furor about the Goldwater rule, since it is precisely about what is wrong with him,” said psychiatrist Dr. Lance Dodes, a retired professor at Harvard Medical School who is now in private practice in Los Angeles.

A number of psychologists have spoken to reporters about what Trump’s statements and actions might reveal about his emotional and cognitive state. Although the American Psychological Association “prefers” that its members not offer opinions on the psychology of someone they have not examined, it does not have a Goldwater rule and is not considering implementing one, an official told STAT.

The psychoanalytic association went further. In its July 6 email, it explicitly stated for the first time that the organization does not subscribe to the rule. That position had been implicit for years, but the association’s “leadership has been extremely reluctant to make a statement and publicly challenge the American Psychiatric Association,” said one psychoanalytic association member who asked not to be publicly identified criticizing the other group.

One stated rationale for the Goldwater rule is that psychiatrists need to examine patients in order to properly evaluate them. In fact, for decades the State Department and other federal agencies have asked psychiatrists to offer their views on the psychological state of foreign leaders, Glass pointed out, evidence that government officials believe it is possible to make informed inferences about mental states based on public behavior and speech.

“In the case of Donald Trump, there is an extraordinary abundance of speech and behavior on which one could form a judgment,” Glass said. “It’s not definitive, it’s an informed hypothesis, and one we should be able to offer rather than the stunning silence demanded by the Goldwater rule.”

The Goldwater rule has long been odd in that violating it carries no penalties. In principle the psychiatric association could file a complaint with a member’s state medical board. That has apparently never happened. Nor has the association ejected a member for violating the Goldwater rule. That is something it, as a private association, would be legally permitted to do.

A state agency, however, is subject to the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties experts say, and penalizing psychiatrists for speaking out would likely be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Correction: The headline of this story has been changed to make clear that the American Psychoanalytic Association has told its members that they are free to ignore the “Goldwater rule” and comment about public figures’ mental state.

Source

roger
 
  2  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 12:21 am
@oristarA,
There are other psychiatric groups who continue to maintain the Goldwater rule. I guess not all news groups bother to mention this.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 01:05 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Sessions is a case of nominative determinism. You don't call a kid Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and not expect him to end up a complete twat.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 01:11 am
@roger,
This particular group consists exclusively of Freudians, eh, Rog? A thoroughly discredited bunch if there ever was one.

They have 3,500 members nationwide. The American Psychological Association has over 115,000.

The cheese-eaters are pulling all stops in their quest to get Trump out of office. All semblance of professional responsibility and ethics has done gone clean out the window with these fringe groups.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 01:28 am
Quote:
The US Senate has failed to pass a Republican proposal to repeal President Barack Obama's signature healthcare policy without replacing it.
The 45-55 vote marks the second defeat for Republicans aiming to pass a bill this week to undo the health policy.
The vote came a day after the Senate rejected a plan to repeal and replace the health law with a Republican plan.
Senators will now consider a "skinny" repeal, which would scale back some of the more controversial provisions.
The "skinny" plan would eliminate unpopular parts of Obamacare - the Affordable Care Act - including the individual mandate requiring all Americans to have health insurance coverage as well as a tax on medical devices.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40736025
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 01:36 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
Dr. Robert Pyles, a Massachusetts psychiatrist,said the president’s behavior is within the normal range: “My liberal colleagues feel frightened and betrayed, so they go to this hysterical extreme of saying Trump has narcissistic tendencies, but what political leader doesn’t?”

Without exception, the mental health professionals said that would-be diagnosticians, including pundits and political foes, are misguided in asserting that Trump has a mental disorder.

A diagnosis of mental illness requires that someone’s behavior, emotions, or beliefs have two key attributes: They cause the individual to suffer clinically significant distress or impairment.

“Trump doesn’t meet DSM criteria” for any mental disorder, said Dr. Allen Frances, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University who oversaw the creation of a previous edition of the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, considered the bible of psychiatry. “I wrote the criteria and should know how they are meant to be applied: Personality disorder requires the presence of clinically significant distress and/or impairment. The armchair, amateur diagnosticians seem either to be unaware of this requirement, or carelessly choose to ignore it.


https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/30/trump-mental-health/
roger
 
  7  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 01:58 am
@layman,
Thanks for tracking that down, but I still think it's at least odd that some articles mention only one association.

Actually, I think the guy is nuts, but I'm not presenting that as a professional opinion.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 03:21 am
Quote:
Commanders from British armed forces have opposed any ban on transgender people serving in the military.
It comes after Donald Trump said that transgender people would not be allowed in the US military due to "tremendous" medical costs and disruption.
But British officials have supported people serving in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
Commander of UK Maritime Forces Rear Admiral Alex Burton tweeted: "I am so glad we are not going this way."
President Trump has posted a series of tweets saying: "After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the US military.
"Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."
In response, Rear Admiral Burton of the Royal Navy tweeted: "As a Royal Navy LGBT champion and senior warfighter I am so glad we are not going this way."
And Second Sea Lord Vice Admiral Jonathan Woodcock tweeted: "So proud of our transgender personnel. They bring diversity to our Royal Navy and I will always support their desire to serve their country.
"I suspect many who doubt the abilities of our diverse service personnel might be more reluctant to serve than they are to comment."
In February, the Army's LGBT champion, Lieutenant General Patrick Sanders said: "Only if individuals are free to be themselves can we release the genie of their potential."
Each of Britain's armed forces welcomes transgender people to serve.
The Ministry of Defence told the BBC that President Trump's tweets were "an American issue".
A spokesman added: "We are clear that all LGBT members of our armed forces play a vital role in keeping our nation safe. We will continue to welcome people from a diverse range of backgrounds, including transgender personnel."
BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said the MoD would not provide the number of transgender people serving in the British military, but that one source had told him there were fewer than 10.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40733701
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 03:46 am
@Blickers,
She was.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 04:31 am
@layman,


Not so optimistic:

Quote:

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conference
Mental health experts say President is 'paranoid and delusional'


Donald Trump has a “dangerous mental illness” and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University.

Mental health experts claimed the President was “paranoid and delusional”, and said it was their “ethical responsibility” to warn the American public about the “dangers” Mr Trump’s psychological state poses to the country.

Speaking at the conference at Yale’s School of Medicine on Thursday, one of the mental health professionals, Dr John Gartner, a practising psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School until 2015, said: “We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html#gallery
layman
 
  -2  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 04:32 am
@izzythepush,
Is there anybody in England, military or not, who ISN'T some kind of gay tranvestite transgendered freak?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  6  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 04:41 am
Winner of today's Amazingly Ignorant DipShittery award
Quote:
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said the voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act is a vote for “free market and competition” over “Stalin-type socialism” in a radio show Tuesday.
TP
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Thu 27 Jul, 2017 04:58 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:


Activist partisan quacks aint paid to be "optimistic." Or ethical. Or competent. This guy is lookin for a job on the 25th amendment "panel," no doubt.

Quote:
Dr Gartner, who is also a founding member of Duty to Warn, an organisation of several dozen mental health professionals who think Mr Trump is mentally unfit to be president.


Only an out and out quack would pretend to make accurate mental diagnosis from watching TV without any personal interviews, clinical tests, etc.

It' obvious where Gartner is coming from:

Quote:
Dr Gartner started an online petition earlier this year on calling for Mr Trump to be removed from office. " We respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office'."

"The organiser, Dr Bandy Lee....[said] "Dr Gartner was invited as an activist and was not on the actual panel, nor a spokesperson for the event."

The organiser emphasises that the event was independently organised and did not represent the views of Yale University or Yale School of Medicine.”

The claims made in the conference have drawn criticism from some in the psychiatric establishment.


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/928/017/465/trumps-dangerous-mental-illness/

Note that this was not a "Yale conference," as claimed. It was a private meeting which rented space from Yale, that's all.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 06:49:29