![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 74. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sara T on June 29, 2000, at 12:32:23
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one..., posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 2:19:27
> > Interesting thought. I think with Kaczynski, though, there developed a co-existing delusional >disorder (paranoia).
>
> Kaczynski's reasoning, from his published treatise on society and technology, was described as credible (though not the violence he took on himself to commit), logical and a genuine reason for concern by the chief scientist from Sun Microsystems in a widely reported cover story in Wired magazine, back in April or so (can't figure out which pile of mags. I've go it in).
>
> As well, in a recent (May or June I believe) cover story in the Atlantic a fellow Harvard student from Kaczynski's era details how Kaczynski was very young and driven when he arrived at Harvard (from what would now be termed as a dysfunctional family), how the values he promotes are in line with the values he learned in his studies at Harvard and in some cruel psych. experiments he was coerced into participating in...
>
> There is a reason for everything, ever action and every re-action and if we look deeply and carefully enough at causes and effects we can see them, without reverting to simplistic diagnostics, third hand or so...
>
> As Einstein noted: "Make things as simple as possible and no simpler." If we all followed that dictum our society would be much saner and healthier. Instead we have a society addicted to mass trivia and idiotic, pseudo-events like: Survivor which demontrates clearly the thesis behind the brilliant book: "Amusing Ourselves to Death: by Neil Postman.dj
Interesting stuff you cite. And you're right, of course, people are always more than any diagnosic category we would like to put on them. I did read, however, that Paraniod Schizophrenia was the "official" diagnosis they gave Kaczynski. Diagnostic categories are only useful in describing a set of symptoms. To reiterate, they don't describe the complexity of a whole person. Certainly not someone as brilliant and complex as Ted Kaczynski.Anyway, however logical any of his thoughts and reasons were, blowing up people is a little off the charts. Unless it were for some achievable goal, like in a war situation where it is part of an orchestrated strategy. NOT that I believe in blowing up people for any cause (although there are times....).
I agree, too, about Survivor. It's ,IMHO, boring to watch voyeuristic programs. I have enough of my own conflicts, thank you. I don't find anything particularly instructive or enlightening or thought provoking about any of it. It's more than trivia, it's like a version of Jerry Springer. And I hate those daytime shows! Setting up a conflict situation in the name of resolution, BS, it is voyeuristic showmanship. Just my opinion.
Sara T.
Posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 14:57:56
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one... » dj, posted by Sara T on June 29, 2000, at 12:32:23
I think Ted Kosinski had strong principles and ideals which vary greatly from the mall culture in which we live. Maybe there was nothing wrong with him at all. Maybe he is one of the few sane people, a person who has the courage of his convictions. I agree with a lot of Kosinski's ideas as summarized in the Atlantic article, but I don't have the courage to alter my life accordingly. The author and former class mate of Kosinski did not seem to think Ted Kosinski had paranoid schizophrenia. His unconventional ideas make us uncomfortable. His actions made us uncomfortable, too, so we label him and dismiss his ideas. I think we overlook a lot of destruction caused by industry, but we are not willing to overlook the comparatively little destruction Kosinski accomplished. I don't condone murder. These are just thoughts I have not drawn conclusions for. Please don't judge me for having questions.
Posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:14:52
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one... » dj, posted by harry b. on June 29, 2000, at 12:24:54
> Sometimes 'simplistic diagnostics' are adequate.
>
As Einstein said: "Make it as simple as possible and no simpler. Too often we err on either side of that spectrum individually and jointly...and the media only distort and accentuate those extremes...
Posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:26:37
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one... » dj, posted by Sara T on June 29, 2000, at 12:32:23
>... however logical any of his thoughts and reasons were, blowing up people is a little off the charts. Unless it were for some achievable goal, like in a war situation where it is part of >an orchestrated strategy.
Ahhh, but it was an orchestrated and rational approach to attempting to create awareness about the potentially lethal effects of technology run amuk. And it was successful given the amount of coverage he received in having those issues seriously addressed by some foremost thinkers and public leaders in public forums.
And his methods distract from his message to some degree but who is to say he wouldn't have received the coverage he had, otherwise. Whether you agree with his means or not (and most rational and moral people wouldn't but some would...), his ends are commendable.
>
> I agree, too, about Survivor. It's ,IMHO, boring to watch voyeuristic programs. I have enough of my own conflicts, thank you ... Just my opinion.
>
And an opinion many others share. Check out http://www.adbusers.org (which did a recent issue on depression and the links with our media culture) However fear and other people's perceived fortunes and misfortunes sell to too many. As H.L. Mencken wrote years ago and it unfortuntately still is relevant: "No one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."Fortunately the converse also applies to some degree...
dj
Posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:29:47
In reply to Questions about Kosinski, posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 14:57:56
> I think Ted Kosinski had strong principles and ideals which vary greatly from the mall culture in which we live. Maybe there was nothing wrong with him at all. Maybe he is one of the few sane people, a person who has the courage of his >convictions. ...
Nice overview of the issues raised by K. and the article!! Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench Gang" is one of the bibles of deep ecology which is the viewpoint that K. and many such folk come from. And perhaps they are right...whether their methods are, or not...
Posted by claire 7 on June 29, 2000, at 22:03:33
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:29:47
What an amazingly interesting thread!! Issues I've wrestled with all my adult (18yrs on) life.
When friends object to spiking trees, I say, yeah, but we need extremes to make the rest of us environmentalists look reasonable, and to create a perceived need on the part of others to "compromise"; and we need extremes to call attention to the problem, a task that unfortunately usually requires violence or the threat of violence. I personally can't squash a spider, can't kill the snakes that haunt my potting shed, couldn't even in good conscience disrupt philosophy classes with anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam. But we need the people who can do these things. ( Jesus was one.)
Ted, I think, was too far gone to be taken seriously, or to be taken as anything other than a wacko, which is a tragedy. And I must admit I can't accept the idea of blowing off a relatively innocent person's hand. (Hitler, O.K. A few others I can think of, O.K. But a small cog in the apparatus, no.)
Note that this topic has, in my opinion, quite a bit of relevance to recent events on this board.
Posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 23:19:13
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by claire 7 on June 29, 2000, at 22:03:33
> Ted, I think, was too far gone to be taken seriously,
Just out of curiosity (I'm not trying to debate the subject), why do you think Ted was "too far gone"?Note that this topic has, in my opinion, quite a bit of relevance to recent events on this board.
I agree.
Posted by Janice on June 29, 2000, at 23:20:35
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by claire 7 on June 29, 2000, at 22:03:33
I'm pretty sure you were.
Posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 23:27:14
In reply to weren't you a grandmother last week Claire 7? nm, posted by Janice on June 29, 2000, at 23:20:35
Janice, I think Claire 7 was referring to the issues she has thought about starting at age 18. I don't think she was saying she is now 18, or that it has been 18 years since her childhood. She could be any age over 18 and could therefore be a grandmother. That's my interpretation of her mention of her age :)
Please correct me if I am wrong, Claire. That's the way I read it.
Posted by Janice on June 30, 2000, at 0:33:28
In reply to Re: weren't you a grandmother last week Claire 7? nm » Janice , posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 23:27:14
Hi Cass,
I didn't really read the post thoroughly. I just find that all bobb's character's are poorly developed, but prehaps he is improving his skill at this.
The real problem is my impulse control. I had to go off the Dexedrine which helped wonderfully, perfectly for my impulse control which I so desperately need help with, but it makes me very, very obsessive and compulsive (maybe I'll start a thread about it).
Sorry for the interuption folks.
Janicetrying to keep my mouth shut!
Posted by dj on June 30, 2000, at 1:20:10
In reply to Re: Asperger's...Ted Kozinski is likely one..., posted by dj on June 29, 2000, at 18:26:37
> Check out http://www.adbusers.org (which did a recent issue on depression and the links with our >media culture)
http://www.adbusters.org, that's it...
Posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 7:12:11
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski » claire 7, posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 23:19:13
I think I meant that his methods were so scary to most people that there wasn't room to think about his ideas. Everyone was just relieved to have him caught so they wouldn't have to think about him anymore. Or something like that. My post wasn't very well-formed! And yes, I did mean that I'd been thinking a lot about these things since I was 18---though I think it began earlier than that.
>
>
Posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 7:21:20
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 7:12:11
>
Posted by Oddzilla on June 30, 2000, at 9:13:58
In reply to Questions about Kosinski, posted by Cass on June 29, 2000, at 14:57:56
> I think Ted Kosinski had strong principles and ideals which vary greatly from the mall culture in which we live. Maybe there was nothing wrong with him at all. Maybe he is one of the few sane people, a person who has the courage of his convictions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Cass I think you raise a good point. This is a quote from the interview with Theodore Roszak at the adbusters link dj posted:Psychology, especially in its therapeutic form, has a treacherous function: namely, it convinces people that their happiness – their sanity, their personal fulfillment – is limited to their social relations. It’s almost an act of censorship. If you do psychology in an industrial society, the one thing you need most to hide or suppress is the damage we do to the natural environment. If you took that seriously as factor in personal sanity, you would probably have to call off industrial progress
I thought this really fit Kosinski. Just because someone is socially inept doesn't make him crazy. Just because someone is a criminal or a murderer doesn't make him crazy. Just because someone is fighting industrial progress doesn't make him crazy. Just because someone is miserable and unemployed and unhappy (gasp!!) doesn't make him crazy.
Anyway them's my reactions of the moment. (Of course we should probably just ignore this ecopsychologist Roszak guy-he sounds a LOT like BBob to me. Another alias no doubt ;-)
Best wishes O.
Posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 10:00:46
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by Oddzilla on June 30, 2000, at 9:13:58
>
As soon as I pushed the post button last night I thought: that was a garbled, contradictory, and misleading post, old girl. One of the misleading things was "couldn't in good conscience disrupt etc". Technically I guess that was true. I did do that once, but I felt ashamed of myself in the middle of it, and never did it again, even though I don't disapprove of such action. WHEW. Talk about conflict! Talk about contradiction! But sometimes I wonder if the struggle to line up all one's ducks in a neat, tight little row may not be at the heart of much dis-ease. (I like that formulation, dj.)
This post is as lame as my original post! I need to get outside and hoe!
(This week-end we're going to celebrate events that were considered by many to be extreme, crazy, disruptive, and violent. Hmm.)
Posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 10:56:50
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by Oddzilla on June 30, 2000, at 9:13:58
>
Great quote. If any creatures come after us, and look at our dead planet, they will debate for centuries about the nature of our insanity.
Posted by Johnturner77 on June 30, 2000, at 11:46:57
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski » Oddzilla , posted by claire 7 on June 30, 2000, at 10:56:50
Chicken Little says "The sky is falling".
If the whole thing comes unglued(its amazing in a way that it hasn't) our perspective on people like Ted Kaczynski and Tim LaVey may change. We may see them as heroes, having clearer insight into the social emergency we live in. We may say we should have listened.
Its probably just legend, but some say that if you put a toad in a container of water and heat is slowly enough you can cook the toad without it jumping out. Isn't that what is happening with our environment?
To a considerable degree we come here because we are casualties of our society. I remember sitting on a island in Maine a few years back without a single human sound and no human lights. In the peace and quiet I realized that there were probably too many humans on this planet. Also, we are subjected to a lot of stresses that we aren't even aware are stressors and probably aren't designed to handle.
Time and again throughout history whole nations snap and stop behaving in their self interest. Maybe relative calm will continue for another hundred years. Or a mess like WW2 only more up to date will engulf us all. Who's crazy then? The "reasonable" Neville Chamberlains? Or the pain in the neck types that we said were over reacting?
Posted by Cass on June 30, 2000, at 18:14:58
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski, posted by Oddzilla on June 30, 2000, at 9:13:58
> Psychology, especially in its therapeutic form, >has a treacherous function: namely, it convinces >people that their happiness – their sanity, >their personal fulfillment – is limited to their >social relations. It’s almost an act of >censorship.
I think that was a really interesting quote. I'm really happy to say that my pdoc has had patients other than myself who have been totally ostracized at mistreated for having the courage of their convictions, and he admires and supports those patients. One of his patients was a cop who stood up against corruption in the force. A serious source of oppression came for me during my childhood, especially my teen years. I was aware of the dangerous pathology in my family, spoke up about it and was rejected and abused for it, by my family and by the community (Alice Miller's "Thou Shalt Not be Aware" was a very validating book for me). My pdocs goal in therapy seems to be directing his patients toward finding truth and not necessarily encouraging them to be "part of the norm" or "most popular".
>
>(Of course we should probably just ignore this >ecopsychologist Roszak guy-he sounds a LOT like >BBob to me. Another alias no doubt ;-)ROTFL!!!!
Posted by Cass on June 30, 2000, at 18:23:17
In reply to AllTheWorldIsCrazyExceptMeAndThee and you're here!, posted by Johnturner77 on June 30, 2000, at 11:46:57
>
> If the whole thing comes unglued(its amazing in >a way that it hasn't) our perspective on people >like Ted Kaczynski and Tim LaVey may change. We may see them as heroes, having clearer insight into the social emergency we live in. We may say we should have listened.
>
Really well put. That is always the nagging question in the back of my mind. As Claire pointed out, Jesus was a social rebel. Iconoclasts who threaten power structures are quickly destroyed. And then once they are out of the way, we can safely "worship false idols" of them.
Posted by shar on July 1, 2000, at 1:39:18
In reply to AllTheWorldIsCrazyExceptMeAndThee and you're here!, posted by Johnturner77 on June 30, 2000, at 11:46:57
Sorry, need to jump in here for a moment.
>
> If the whole thing comes unglued(its amazing in a way that it hasn't) our perspective on people like Ted Kaczynski and Tim LaVey may change. We may see them as heroes, having clearer insight into the social emergency we live in. We may say we should have listened.
>
>
This may be true. I remember when Arafat and the PLO were blowing up schools, and school buses, and children and the general consensus was that he was very, very bad and nuts. And, today...well... I am stunned every time I see him welcomed into some political function, handshaking all around, smiling, pats on the back. I shudder.I don't think that any man that could commit such heinous acts, as he did, for any purpose whatsoever is "sane" as I define it. He may walk and talk and act in functional ways, but there is a constitutional defect (my opinion) in such a person that makes him axiomatically out of touch. Perhaps it is "only" megalomania in an extreme form.
I believe killing of the innocents in bulk to be irrational, indefensible, and not the act of a sane person(IMHO). I cannot imagine ever believing that Kosinski and/or McVey were sane, rational, reasonable, or in control of themselves, nor that they furthered their cause.
>
>
Its probably just legend, but some say that if you put a toad in a container of water and heat is slowly enough you can cook the toad without it jumping out. Isn't that what is happening with our environment?To a considerable degree we come here because we are casualties of our society. I remember sitting on a island in Maine a few years back without a single human sound and no human lights. In the peace and quiet I realized that there were probably too many humans on this planet. Also, we are subjected to a lot of stresses that we aren't even aware are stressors and probably aren't designed to handle.
>
>
Re: the environment being passively allowed to self-destruct (or other-destruct), I don't believe so. Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in the 60's and environmental concerns have been in the world consciousness ever since (to varying degrees at various times). Some people do not hesitate to sell out the environment, they take action to make a profit. Others harm (or get harmed) to make a living. Others are unwilling to do harm, and take action to protect the environment. Other people recycle their newspapers and cans.I believe in most of the world, people are slowly becoming aware of what we've wrought over the decades. It's starting to affect people's livelihood now, and that's turning them in to (perhaps unwilling) environmentalists (as in the salmon fishers for one example). And even scientists are hoist with their own petard because their "clean" plastic test tubes contain enough contaminants to interact with the substances they hold.
And, people in cities everywhere are no longer content to let the new company move in so everybody can have a job--when it means the contamination of their environment.
There is a history here that is worth remembering. The mindset of "better living thru chemistry" was true for most people for a while. It did seem that much of what was happening (in the 40's, 50's) was good. But, people had to learn along the way--take DDT for example. It did do an excellent job at pest control, but it took time for people to learn about the other awful things it did. And that knowledge grew a community of people dedicated to protecting people and the earth from DDT.
Or practicing what to do in school if there was a nuclear attack (get under your desk of course). Now we know much better, and we've come a long way from "get under your desk." It will take time for us to learn everything.
There are few angels (and a number of SOB's) in the arena, but I think using such a broad brush to paint the picture about our environment and humanity is just as misleading as saying there is nothing wrong.
>
> >
> Time and again throughout history whole nations snap and stop behaving in their self interest. Maybe relative calm will continue for another hundred years. Or a mess like WW2 only more up to date will engulf us all. Who's crazy then? The "reasonable" Neville Chamberlains? Or the pain in the neck types that we said were over reacting?
>
>
I don't think it's that simple. I think we may well kill off a bunch of ourselves on a massive scale; especially when we try to solve the problems we caused with more chemistry...And, we should remember that there are also problems in existence as a result of efforts on behalf of the environment. Not much in this world is linear.It also depends on how one defines "overreaction" or "crazy." Many accomplishments benefiting the world and the environment have been attained without having to kill children, or mail out incendiary devices, or call out the dogs and night sticks, or hold hostages or blow up jets, or gas people in the subways.
I believe in every era, there have been events that appeared to be leading to the end. Humans (and the earth), however, evolve (learn) and adapt, and there are always people around who will devote their energy to positive change and harm to none.
There is also a whole population of people who are so involved in trying to care for and feed their families, they haven't begun to consider some of the issues.
We won't all of us be reaching the same conclusions at the same time, and we won't all consider the same issues equally important, but I don't plan to kill anyone to make my point, nor will I abandon my efforts to change things.
Shar
Posted by Sara T on July 1, 2000, at 8:58:07
In reply to Seeing the Forest and the Trees, posted by shar on July 1, 2000, at 1:39:18
Shar-
Great post. Very well said. Right on!!!
Sara T.
Posted by dj on July 1, 2000, at 16:17:43
In reply to Re: Seeing the Forest and the Trees » shar, posted by Sara T on July 1, 2000, at 8:58:07
With July 4 coming up it's useful to put some of the BIG LIEs put out by our governments to question. The following very, elegant commencement address outlines the U.S.'s continuing tragic policies in one corner of the world and some of the effects on innocent people there...never mind the longterm ecological damage to us all as pollution respects no borders...
The Canadian government and others, shamefully, walked lockstep with the U.S. government on the hypocritical armed actions that proceeded the current situation. Our governments and corporations should all hang their heads in shame and do something to reverse this travesty of justice instead of continuing to wrongfully portray themselves as the good guys in this PR war...
Just as in the political and media-inspired mania and idiotic hype surrounding Elian Gonzales someone has to cut through the BS and do the decent thing. The hyporcritical black and white, us and them thinking and distortion of reality which leads to these international abuses and travesties of justice only hurt us all in the end, and no-one comes out looking any better than anyone else, except for the folks in Doctors without Borders and other such groups which ignore the politics and focus on the common humanity and deal with the suffering, our societies have contributed to excessively, usually in the searh of profit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
_____________________
>
>Following is the text of Fadia Rafeedie's Cal-Berkeley convocation
>address last Wednesday. For those of you who may be unaware,
>Madeline Albright was the commencement speaker. Fadia, the student
>speaker who earned the distinguished honor of addressing the
>audience, is Palestinian. Because Secretary Albright was invited to
>speak, Fadia put aside her proposed speech (which had already been
>read and approved by the University) and instead spoke from her heart
>about her views of Albright and U.S. policy in Iraq.
> >
>Chancellor Berdahl: Please join me in congratulating our 2000
>University Medalist, Fadia Rafeedie:
> >
>Fadia: Thank you, that was way too generous, Chancellor Berdahl. It
>makes me sound, you know, a lot better than I am. I had a speech and
>it's right here. It took me so long to draft it and I kept re-drafting it,
>and this morning I changed it again, but I'm just going to put it to the
>side and I'm going to talk from my heart because what I witnessed here
>today, I have mixed feelings about.
> >
>I don't know why I'm up here articulating the viewpoints of a lot of my
>comrades out there who were arrested, and not them. It's not because
>I got, you know, straight A's or maybe it is. Maybe that's the way the
>power structure works, but I'm very fortunate to be able to give them a
>voice. I think that's what I'm going to do, so if you give me your
>attention, I'd really appreciate it.
> >
>I was hoping to speak before Secretary Albright, but that was also a
>reflection of the power structure, I think, to sort of change things
>around and make it difficult for people who are ready to articulate their
>voice in ways they don't usually get a chance to.
> >
>So I'm going to improvise, and I'm going to mention some things that
>she didn't mention at all in her speech but which most of the protesters
>were actually talking about. You know, I think it's really easy for us to
>feel sorry for her, and I was looking at my grandmothers who are
>actually in the audience - my grandmother and her sister - who weren't
>really happy with all the protesters, and I think they thought that wasn't
>really respectful of them, and a lot of you didn't, I don't think, because
>you came to hear her speak. But I think what the protesters did was not
>embarrass our university. I think they dignified it.
>
>Because secretary Albright didn't even mention Iraq, and that's what
>they were here to listen to. And I think sometimes NOT saying things
>not mentioning things - is actually lying about them.
>
>And what I was going to tell her while she was sitting on the stage with
>me, I was going to remind her that four years ago from this Friday
>when we were freshmen, I heard her on 60 Minutes talking to a reporter
>who had just returned from Iraq.
> >
>The reporter was describing that a million children were dying [died]
>due to the sanctions that this country was imposing on the people of
>Iraq. And she told her, listen, "that's more.. children than have died in
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think the price is worth it?" [Albright]
>looked into the camera and she said, "the price is worth it.
>
>"Since that time, 3 times that number of people have died in Iraq. And I
>was going to tell her, "do you really think the price is worth it? " We
>are about 5000 here today, next month, by the time we graduate, that's
>as many people who are going to die in Iraq because of the sanctions.
>This is what House Minority Whip David Boniors calls 'infanticide
>masquerading as policy.'
> >
>Now, I don't want to make the mood somber here because this is our
>commencement, but commencement means beginning, and I think it's
>important for us to begin where civilization itself began, and where it's
>now being destroyed. [applause]
>
>Let me talk to you a little bit a little bit more about the sanctions,
>because I think it's very important. Now, I'm a Palestinian, I would
>really love to talk about the struggle for the liberation of my country,
>and to talk about a whole bunch of other things and I see some people
>maybe rolling their eyes, and other people nodding these are
>controversial issues, but I need to speak about Iraq because I think
>what's happening there is a genocide. It's another holocaust.
> >
>And I'm a history major, and sometimes I look back at history and I
>see things like the slave trade, the Holocaust you know, I see I see
>people dropping atomic bombs and not thinking what the ramifications
>are, and I don't want us to think about Iraq that way. It's already a
>little too late because 2.5 million people have died and yet these
>sanctions
>continue.
> >
>For the last 10 years, you wouldn't imagine the kinds of things that
>aren't being let into this country: heart machines, lung machines,
>needles, um infrastructural parts to build the economy. Even cancer
>patients sometimes some of the medicine will be let in, but not ALL of
>the medicine.
> >
>It's very strategic what's let in at what time, because what it does is it
>prolongs life, but it doesn't save it.
>
>In Iraq, the hospitals they clean the floors with gasoline because
>detergent isn't even allowed in because of the sanctions.
>
>These are all United States policies.
>
>And Secretary Albright - I have no conflict with HER, as an individual. I
>don't happen to RESPECT her, but she belongs to a larger power
>structure. She's a symbol.
>
>And when the protesters are protesting, it's not because they want to
>pick a fight with the woman who you guys all happen -well, many of
>you - happen to love. She was introduced as the 'greatest woman of
>our times.' Now see, to me that's an insult. [applause] This woman is
>doing HORRIBLE things. She's allowing innocent people to suffer and
>to die.
>
>Iraq used to be the country in the Arab World that had the best
>medical services and social services for its people, and NOW look at
>it. It's being OBLITERATED.
> >
>And a lot of times you might hear it's because of Saddam Hussein and
>I'd like to talk a little bit about that. He's a brutal dictator - I agree
>With her, and I agree with many of you. But again, I'm a history major, and
>history means origins. It means beginnings. We need to see who's
>responsible
>for how strong Saddam Hussein has gotten.
> >
>When he when he was gassing the Kurds, he was gassing them using
>chemical weapons that were manufactured in Rochester, New York.
> >
>And when he was fighting a long and protracted war with Iran, where 1
>million people died, it was the CIA that was funding him. It was U.S.
>policy that built this dictator. When they didn't NEED him, they started
>imposing sanctions on his people. Sanctions - or any kind of policy -
>should be directed at people's governments, not at the people.
> >
>The cancer rate in Iraq has risen by over 70 percent since the Gulf
>War. The children who are dying from these malicious and diseases,
>weren't born when the Gulf War happened. The reason that the cancer
>rate is so high is because every other day our country is bombing Iraq
>STILL. We're still at war with them. They have no nuclear capabilities.
>In fact, just last week, the United Nations inspectors found [again] that
>Iraq has no nuclear capabilities and yet WE are BOMBING them every
>other day with depleted uranium. And what this does is it releases a
>gas that the people breathe. It's making them ill, and they're dying and
>they don't have medicine.
> >
>I saw some of my friends, even, being arrested here today. One of
>them was Lillian. Her aunt did a documentary about this depleted
>uranium, and it showed that it's being MINED by Native American
>populations in the United States. THEY'RE getting sick. Their children
>are getting sick. And that depleted uranium is going from HERE, to our
>MILITARY, to Iraq, and it's decimating populations. This is a big deal.
> >
>And I'm embarrassed that I don't even get to talk about Columbia,
>because I saw a few signs about that, too. And my colleague here,
>Darren Noy, who's also a Finalist, is very interested in these issues.
>We don't stand alone. I'm on stage with allies, I'm looking out at allies,
>we need allies, my allies have been taken away [today].
>
>But in general, I mean, I'm speaking to a crowd that gave a standing
>ovation to the woman who typifies everything against which I stand,
>and I'm still telling you this because I think it's important to
>understand.
> >
>And I think, that if I achieve nothing else, if this makes you think a
>little bit about Iraq, think a little bit about U.S. foreign policy, I've
>succeeded.
> >
>I don't want to take too much of your time, but I want to end my
>speech with a slogan that hangs over my bed in Arabic. It says, "La
>tastaw7ishu tareeq el-7aq, min qilit es-sa'ireen fihi" and that translates
>into, "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." I
>think our future is going to be the future of truth, and we're going to
>walk
>on that path, and we're going to fill it with travelers.
>
>Thank you very much.
>
>[Standing ovation from the stage, with the faculty members, the senior
>class council, and the student award-winners. And, of course, standing
>ovation from a cheering section in the crowd.]
>
> >**********
>Reprinted under the fair use doctrine
>of international copyright law:
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Posted by claire 7 on July 1, 2000, at 20:49:52
In reply to Seeing Forest and Trees in another light..., posted by dj on July 1, 2000, at 16:17:43
Thank you, dj, for posting that.
Sincerely, Claire
Posted by claire 7 on July 1, 2000, at 21:00:20
In reply to Re: Questions about Kosinski » Oddzilla , posted by Cass on June 30, 2000, at 18:14:58
>Dear Cass:
Just wanted to say that when I was shrink shopping 10 or so years ago, one of the questions I asked of potential employees was, "What do you think of Alice Miller?' If the doc didn't have an interesting or at least somewhat knowledgable answer, I politely excused myself and continued my search.
(Amazingly, several of those I interviewed just looked completely BLANK.)
Best wishes, Claire
Posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 0:36:58
In reply to Re: Seeing the Forest and the Trees » shar, posted by Sara T on July 1, 2000, at 8:58:07
Sara,
Thank you. After I posted it I thought "Jeez, that had nothing to do with Psych or Babble!! How irrelevant."I feel better after your remarks. Thanks--
Shar
> Shar-
>
> Great post. Very well said. Right on!!!
>
> Sara T.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.