A Psychiatrist's Anaysis of W Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Albert, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2007 at 8:09 pm
An interesting perspective from Dr. Paul Minot, a psychiatrist in Waterville, Maine:
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff. Please re-post with a link to the source material you are quoting. We suspect that this is copyrighted material and should not be reposted on Town Square. Thanks.]
Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Well, yes Paul, sometimes we get a bit worked up over silly things and waste some time online here. (Palm trees???). But I wouldn't lump this piece in with any "Nazi/dictator" type of claptrap. Everything above rings true to me, and I find it worth reading and commenting to help keep focus on the poor quality of executive leadership in this administration.
Posted by eric, a resident of Mountain View, on Apr 27, 2007 at 9:52 am
How is that POSSIBLY relevant, Draw? The APA didnt issue that report. It is the opinion of an individual claiming some expertise on the subject. If you have specific criticism of his methodology or credentials, by all means share them
Posted by Ahem, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2007 at 4:03 pm
As usual facts don't matter. It is a serious distortion to say that the APA won't come down against man-boy relations.
Statement by American Psychological Association
Childhood Sexual Abuse Causes Serious Harm to its Victims
March 23, 1999
Those who are reporting that the study says that childhood sexual contact with adults is not harmful to children are misreporting the findings. The facts are that the majority of the psychological literature reveals that childhood sexual abuse has serious negative effects on its victims. The question raised by the study is an important one Does sexual abuse cause varying degrees of harm to children? In other words, can the childs age, resiliency, and/or family environment ever mitigate the ill effects of the abuse? If such mitigating factors can be shown through this and further research child abuse prevention and treatment programs could put that knowledge to work helping both children and families. Such knowledge would, however, in no way excuse any form of abuse. All abuse is wrong, but all abuse may not be equally harmful.
No responsible mental health organization, including the American Psychological Association, endorses pedophilia or denies its negative effects on children. Any statement that suggests otherwise is a serious distortion of the truth. The American Psychiatric Association writes: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior."
This statement is fully consistent with the policies of the American Psychological Association and with the views of mental health professionals throughout the nation.
For copies of the APA Policy Statement on the Psychological Issues Related to Child Abuse and Neglect, the Report of the APA Coordinating Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect or for citations from the psychological literature on childhood sexual abuse contact:
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Dr. Minot's perspective is perfectly backed up by W's record and history since childhood. The reckless and self absorbed loser who never had to suffer any consequences for his numerous failures and transgressions because his powerful, wealthy and extremely well connected family made sure he wouldn't. The inability to ampathize with the fallen soldiers and their families is perfectly explained by his sociopathic narcissism.
It is the greatest tragedy in US history:a sociopath who became president due to the intervention of his daddy's supreme court buddies and is inevitably causing the death of untold number of Americans and foreigners due to his insanity, idiocy, hubris and lack of any moral backbone.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Sure - if only the court had been willing to do what the Washington State courts did and let them keep counting and tossing out military ballots until the count came out "right". As far as I can determine there was no second seat in the Delta Dagger that Bush flew in defense of US airspace. I find it difficult to believe the number of cheerleaders Saddam has on this forum.
Posted by Jimmy, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm
This is really sad. Bush is a Nazi; Bush is a War Criminal; Bush is mentally disturbed. Etc, etc. Is Palo Alto really full of so many people who have lost all perspective on this man?
(By the way, I'm no Bush fan. I think he's been a pretty lousy president overall and some of his policies have been disastrous for the country....but really... some of the rhetoric here - apparently meant to be taken seriously by some - really is strangely delusional.)
Posted by Robert, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I have known a couple of people who were diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and they had many of the exact same traits and behavior patterns Bush has been exhibiting. The inabilty to ever admit an error, it's always somebody else's fault, the inabilty to accept responsibility for one's actions, total recklessness and indifference to the risk it may cause to others while never risking their own life, inability to fell other people's pain and loss, especially when that pain and loss were caused by the narcissit's own hubris, etc. I have suspected for the last 6 years that Bush, among other mental defencies he's inflicted with had NPD and this is just an articulate confirmation from a professional of something that so many people in the US and around the world have been suspecting for a long time.
Note that once you reach 14 years old, you are no longer a "child" in this definition.
Nowhere on the American PSYCHIATRIC Association's site will you find any comment on the "Love" association to which I referred, ergo they have consistently refused to comment on it.
So "Ahem"- As usual facts don't matter? Here they are.
Being one of the thousands and thousands of psychiatrists there are does not mean a thing when it comes to ability to diagnose, nor does it mean that even a competent one could "diagnose" from afar.
Every take even a rudimentary psych class? Every single one of us ( with any ability toward introspection) can see a little of every single diagnosis in ourselves.
The article you refer to can be applied to pretty much any leader thuse far, from the most revered elected leader to the most brutalizing dictator. And, frankly, it can be applied to most physicians ( psychiatrists are physicians) I know as well. The price of "admitting" error is extremely high in both cases, and can only be done in certain remediating ways, or it invokes the uninformed and uncontrolled wrath of the ignorant, to the detriment of all.
This was a fluff piece meant to bring money and fame from those who already agree with the template.
Posted by Robert, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2007 at 12:41 pm
There's no doubt whatsoever that the shrub is psychothic. I dare him to agree to be axamined by 3 different panels of psychiatrists. There's no doubt that he'll be determined to be psycothic. And of course, the Constitution requires the president to be sound of mind. We just can't assume that we can somehow survive 20 more months of this.
Posted by Donnie, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on May 2, 2007 at 11:33 am
"No doubt that shrub is psychotic"? Really? You must have preternatural psychiatric abilities to be able to know this with such certainty - never having examined him (and I presume possessing no professional credentials that would qualify you to pass such judgment anyway)
And can you point to the provision of the constitution that "requires the president to be of sound mind"? It must be missing from my copy.
Posted by litebug, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 2, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Bush on the Couch—Inside the Mind of the President
by Justin A. Frank, M.D.
New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2004
219 pages, hardbound, $24.95
The above book has had a lot of discussion and has been favorably and seriously reviewed. It is obvious that Bush has a number of serious mental and character flaws in addition to being 3 beers short of a six pack in the intelligence department.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 3, 2007 at 7:05 am
The argument that Bush is mentally deficient is best answered not by no he isn't yes he is, but by citations of independent evidence such as the Bush instrument flight and jet fighter qualification and proficiency, both idiology free indications of intelligence. Just as there is no royal road to learning, there is no wealthy road to proficiency.
Posted by Albert, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 3, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Bush never showed up for his physical after being transferred to the Alabama Air Guard. He became atumatically disqualified to fly planes. He also never showed up for duty in Alabama.We can only speculate whether his alcoholism, drug use or mental derangement or a combination of the above were the cause of his going AWOL, but there goes the myth of the intrepid flyer who was going to protect the Texas skys from a Mexican invasion.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 3, 2007 at 7:41 pm
The Delta Dagger was being phased out and pilots were returning from Nam wanting flying slots, and so there was no posibility Bush could have qualified for a new fighter in the time he had left. Besides, we were discussing indicatiopns of mental deficiency that you seem not to have the intellect to discuss. Even if Bush was a drunk, he was a smart drunk. About 130 IQ, I would say. About 3 points under me, 30 points over the average democrat. 50 over Al.
I am not trying to convince you of anything contrary to your belief, Albert, but for anyone who cares about the facts of the AWOL myth, read the link above...
Aside from the silly notion, silly if you know anything about the military, that anyone who had been documented AWOL could possibly get an honorable discharge from the military, here is the rest of the story in summary.
The summary of the facts are Bush served every single day of his commitment. He served much more than required for 4 years, then received permission to go back to school ( Harvard ) and went, coming back to fill the minimum required, not OVER, number of days in the Guard.
By the way, in 1973 the Guard was looking for ways to cut down on the pilots they had..they had too many..we were pulling out of Vietnam. They were encouraging pilots to work less. Sort of like when your job goes into a slump and the bosses asks for volunteers to take some time off.