The Light: Hillary

Or so it seems since Obama, despite all of the Town Halls, all of the polls (here’s one), the Tea Party protests, all of it, is going on with his huge push for his Healthcare bill, and it is most definitely his.

Even in the face of mounting opposition within his own party, and even among some liberals like Dr. Marcia Angell (who, by the way, is being demonized by some progressives as being “anti-woman” for opposing this bill. That is some logical leap, as in, it has lept away from being logical). Dr. Angell highlights that this bill as written is a gift to the pharmaceutical companies (Obama made his deal with them before any bill was ever even written) and the INSURANCE companies, the same ones Obama demonizes in his speeches. Yet, on Obama goes, as this article by Charles Krauthammer brings home, Onward with Obamacare, Regardless:

So the yearlong production, set to close after Massachusetts’s devastatingly negative Jan. 19 review, saw the curtain raised one last time. Obamacare lives.

After 34 speeches (as of 3/4/10), three sharp electoral rebukes (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and a seven-hour seminar, the president announced Wednesday his determination to make one last push to pass his health-care reform.

The final act was carefully choreographed. The rollout began a week earlier with a couple of shows of bipartisanship: a Feb. 25 Blair House “summit” with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans’ way.

Show is the operative noun. Among the few Republican suggestions President Obama pretended to incorporate was tort reform. What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of his health-care bill.

As for the Blair House seminar, its theatrical quality was obvious even before it began. The Democrats had already decided to go for a purely partisan bill. Obama signaled precisely that intent at the end of the summit show — then dramatically spelled it out just six days later in his 35th health-care speech: He is going for the party-line vote.

Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections — contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.

No kidding about the Blair House seminar. We suspected that was the case before it happened, and its hours long drama did nothing to dispel that initial suspicion. Not that that stopped Obama, then or now, despite the outcome. A big ol’ oopsie daisy” for the Democrats on that one:

Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health-care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments), they are in favor.

Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?

Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: a dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.

However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak is to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?

Perhaps something like 3 to 1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry’s feeling about the current Democratic health-care bills.

Uh, yeah – I don’t know how many more ways Americans can say we do not want this bill as written, yet Obama and the Democrats continue their push regardless of the sentiment, and the concerns, like cost:

Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health-care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.

Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.

Which is what drove even strong Obama supporter Warren Buffett to go public with his judgment that the current Senate bill, while better than nothing, is a failure because the country desperately needs to bend the cost curve down, and the bill doesn’t do it. Buffett’s advice would be to start over and get it right with a bill that says “we’re just going to focus on costs and we’re not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things.” (Disclosure: Buffett is a director of The Washington Post Co.)

Obama has chosen differently, however. The time for debate is over, declared the nation’s seminar leader in chief. The man who vowed to undo Washington’s devious and wicked ways has directed the Congress to ram Obamacare through, by one vote if necessary, under the parliamentary device of “budget reconciliation.” The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.

Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Well, true that. Those of us who were watching with eyes wide open, and not high on Hopium or drunk on Kool Aide, were never “illusioned.” As Obama’s tenure continues, we marvel that so many are STILL “illusioned.” Kinda makes you wonder just what the hell it takes to finally get through the closed minds of his supporters. Buying GM didn’t do it; taking over banks didn’t do it; giving away the store to the unions didn’t do it; his lack of experience and leadership didn’t do it; and now this healthcare debacle isn’t doing it. What in the hell does it TAKE to get through to them?

To be honest, I don’t think I want to know. How about you?

When I heard about how the Democrats are treating Eric Massa for sticking to his guns rather than falling in line with Democratic Party orders, I thought about Eric’s old boss, General Wesley Clark, and and what General Barry McCaffery once wrote about him. “Wes was always looked on as too well-educated, too wired, too good-looking. He’s not a simple crunch soldier.” Eric isn’t a crunch Democrat—he thinks for himself. That can no longer to be tolerated.

I am watching his resignation from Congress play out with great sadness.

I knew Eric.

I was active* in both of his campaigns. He has a fresh honesty about him. I knew he had battled cancer. I knew he could swear like the sailor he used to be and that he had a low crap tolerance. I knew he was not perfect. Yet his directness and hopes for the future of our country were healthy and persuasive. He was a man of the people.

I never thought I would tell this story in public, but I know for a fact that the recent clash with Rahm Emanuel was not the first. I actually witnessed such a confrontation several years ago at a meeting in Washington DC arranged by General Clark. Emanuel was giving a talk to the 40 or so of us in the meeting room, and so inappropriately attacked Erick by denigrating the way he was running his campaign. It was shocking and embarrassing, especially because Eric was right there in the room. But it’s not Rahm’s style to pull someone aside to speak privately about any concerns. No sadistic fun in that. Well, they went at it in the hotel lobby. And let me tell you that Eric may be the only human being who can indeed hold his own with Emanuel. If it were now only a two-man fight, I’d put my money on Eric.

Finally, there is an easy and cheap way to destroy the credibility and reputation of another human being. You just have to be evil enough to be willing to do it. First you find something unflattering, make a big deal out of it, gather up your allies, and start suggesting that your prey is both ridiculous and mentally unstable. We are seeing that play out now. It’s ugly theater, yet we are all watching as those in power reveal the tactics they will use to destroy any dissidents standing in their path.

*Eric would know me only by my “day job” name.

Marc Thiessen, former Bush speechwriter, is a dangerous man. Apart from his lunatic ravings and fantasies in his book, Courting Disaster, he has now weighed in on the fact that the Department of Justice is now employing lawyers who helped represent alleged Al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo. Obviously Thiessen brings the same ineptitude and ignorance to the issue of jurisprudence that he displays on the issue of terrorism and torture. Thiessen writes in the Washington Post:

Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would — and rightly so.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

No wonder Bush sounded like a fucking moron at times. He had Thiessen as a speechwriter.

In fact, I am willing to bet that Bush on his on would have come off as quite intelligent had he gone with his gut instead of relying on a dope like Thiessen.

Marc, for starters the big difference is that THE MOB PAYS THE MOB LAWYERS AND THE DRUG CARTELS PAY THE DRUG LAWYERS but, and this is a very critical but, AL QAEDA DID NOT AND HAS NOT PAID FOR A SINGLE LAWYER.

Got some startling news for you Marc, lawyers don’t take clients because they are innocent. Sometimes lawyers actually defend people who are guilty. It is called the American system of justice. We start with the presumption of innocence. If you want a legal system that assumes at the outset that the defendant is guilty then you should get your ass to Russia or China asap. You (and I) would be so much happier if you were in a country that celebrates authoritarianism and the right of the state to declare anyone a terrorist without having to prove their claim.

See, America sucks ass because we have this quaint idea that the individual, not the Government, is supreme and that the power of the government, especially the Federal Government, ought to be checked and limited. That’s why lawyers got involved with the question of whether or not a President, not just a Republican President, could grab people, declare them terrorists and hold them indefinitely.

Thiessen goes on to whine:

Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals “war criminals” and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the “al-Qaeda seven” when a Spanish judge tried to indict the “Bush six”? Philippe Sands, author of the “Torture Team,” crowed: “This is the end of these people’s professional reputations!” I don’t recall anyone accusing him of “shameful” personal attacks.

The standard today seems to be that you can say or do anything when it comes to the Bush lawyers who defended America against the terrorists. But if you publish an Internet ad or ask legitimate questions about Obama administration lawyers who defended America’s terrorist enemies, you are engaged in a McCarthyite witch hunt.

Thiessen, you retard, the reason that your list of so-called fine lawyers were attacked is because they violated the very tenets of law that the Constitution enshrines. What the hell has happened to genuine conservatives? There was a time that conservatives believed first and foremost in the rule of law, limited power of the Federal Government and fiscal responsibility. You and your former boss, W, blew those concepts all to hell. Me? I continue to believe firmly and passionately that the power of the Federal Government should and must be limited. I do not believe in a theocratic form of government. The President is not a divine being nor is he (or she) infallible. Yet you persist with this fascistic nonsense to assert that our Government, using fear, can usurp the rights of any individual that it decides on its own is a terrorist or an enemy.

Unlike you I have learned the lessons of Nuremberg. Unlike you I remember and understand the historical precedent of governments run by dictators and thugs–Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. While George Bush is not a criminal on par with those scum, he still engaged in practices that, no matter how noble his intention, presented a direct threat to our system of government and the principle that the government is limited in what it can do to individuals.

There is a part of me that secretly hopes that Barack Obama begins to do exactly what George Bush did. Only this time, following a terrorist attack by a group linked to Tea Party folks, he goes after conservatives who are speaking out against his government. Only then will you understand the slippery slope you are on and only then will you begin to appreciate that our system of government is not and should not hinge on whether the President is a “good guy” or “well intentioned.” Moreover, sovereign has the right to unilaterally declare a person guilty or to imprison them at will without limit. That is not America.

Our system holds that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” That’s a concept you ought to explore.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

Banks are increasingly healthy, right? Our nation’s accounting rules promote real transparency and integrity in our financial reporting, right? Housing is bottoming, right? No, no, and no!

Why so pessimistic, you may ask? I am not pessimistic at all. I am merely searching for the truth in the midst of the smoke and mirrors on Wall Street and in Washington.

Thank you to our friends at 12th Street Capital for sharing a recently released letter from Congressman Barney Frank imploring the four largest banks involved in mortgage originations to write off second liens they are holding on their books at inflated values.

Why does Congressman Frank believe these loans need to be written off? The liens must be largely written off so that Washington can then compel banks to engage in writing down principal on first liens in an attempt to keep people in their homes. Keeping people and families in homes is certainly a worthy cause, but the process is fraught with all kinds of violations of moral hazards and assorted unintended consequences. When you hear that your neighbor receives a principal reduction, how long will it take you to go to your bank and demand the same?

Let’s review Frank’s brief, two-page letter (click on image below to access pdf document). Focus on Frank’s comment that the second liens have no real value but accounting rules allow the banks to carry them at artificially high values. Can you say, “cooking the books”?

What are the projected losses in these second liens? Well, how much of this paper is outstanding? The Wall Street Journal provides a bar graph in an article, Home-Savings Moves Afoot:

So, with $1 trillion in outstanding second liens on the books, the question begs as to how much of this indebtedness is current, how much is delinquent, and how much is truly worthless but not yet acknowledged. In discussions with those in the industry, suffice it to say, the most optimistic assessment is that the industry has at least a few hundred billion in losses yet to be acknowledged.

The larger banks addressed by Congressman Frank are the largest holders of these second liens. These banks do have earnings power given the free flow of liquidity provided by the Fed and accompanying capital markets activities. That is not the case with smaller institutions. How many of those institutions are already dead, but not yet buried?

Wonder why banks are reluctant to provide credit? They need to increase capital knowing these second liens are truly an ongoing sinkhole.

LD

Do ya’ll member that nice colored boy, Chicken George, in the made for TV series, Roots? Yessirree, dat boy was a fine specimen of the darky seeking his freedom. I seems to recall dat Chicken George, along with loving dat fried chicken also was sweet on collard greens, chitlins and watermelon. Yum, yum. Well, guess who else happens to black and loves him some watermelon? Yep, Barack Obama. At least dats da word from we now have fromDan Rather, who reminds us that there is just something about Barack Obama and watermelon:

“Listen he’s a nice person, he’s very articulate” this is what’s been used against him, “but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”

Gee Dan, anymore clever analogies?

How about, “Obama couldn’t tap dance even if he was stapled to the tap shoes of Sammy Davis junior?” or “He couldn’t find chitlins on a pig farm?”

Personally I would have used the pineapple. Why? At least it is something Barack grew up with and is a popular fruit in his native state. Moreover, pineapple does not have a racist connotation. How about, “Barack couldn’t feed pineapple to starving tourists on Hawaii?” I think that would be an apt description of Barack’s dilemma.

What do you folks think?

Reprinted from the blog for the syndicated John Batchelor Show, nightly from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. ET.

Today, March 8th, is the 99th celebration of International Women’s Day. The history of how this day came to be is interesting:

International Women’s Day has been observed since in the early 1900’s, a time of great expansion and turbulence in the industrialized world that saw booming population growth and the rise of radical ideologies.

1908
Great unrest and critical debate was occurring amongst women. Women’s oppression and inequality was spurring women to become more vocal and active in campaigning for change. Then in 1908, 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights.

1909
In accordance with a declaration by the Socialist Party of America, the first National Woman’s Day (NWD) was observed across the United States on 28 February. Women continued to celebrate NWD on the last Sunday of February until 1913.

1910
In 1910 a second International Conference of Working Women was held in Copenhagen. A woman named a Clara Zetkin (Leader of the ‘Women’s Office’ for the Social Democratic Party in Germany) tabled the idea of an International Women’s Day. She proposed that every year in every country there should be a celebration on the same day – a Women’s Day – to press for their demands. The conference of over 100 women from 17 countries, representing unions, socialist parties, working women’s clubs, and including the first three women elected to the Finnish parliament, greeted Zetkin’s suggestion with unanimous approval and thus International Women’s Day was the result.

1911
Following the decision agreed at Copenhagen in 1911, International Women’s Day (IWD) was honoured the first time in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on 19 March. More than one million women and men attended IWD rallies campaigning for women’s rights to work, vote, be trained, to hold public office and end discrimination. However less than a week later on 25 March, the tragic ‘Triangle Fire’ in New York City took the lives of more than 140 working women, most of them Italian and Jewish immigrants. This disastrous event drew significant attention to working conditions and labour legislation in the United States that became a focus of subsequent International Women’s Day events. 1911 also saw women’s ‘Bread and Roses‘ campaign.

Fifteen thousand women marching in New York City over a hundred years ago – wow, that must have been some sight to see. To read the rest of the history about International Women’s Day, click HERE.

In honor of this day, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, prepared this address:

No discussion of IWD would be complete, though, without one of the most powerful speeches about Women’s Rights and Human Rights. That would be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech to the UN 4th World Conference on Women Plenary Session in Beijing:

Wow – moves me to tears every time I watch this speech for a number of reasons: to have such an amazing advocate for women’s rights, and human rights; the awe of her making this point to such a wide ranging audience, and grief that so much about which Clinton spoke – economic inequality, educational inequality, and the rampant rape of women around the globe, often as a tool of war. After all these years, it is not decreasing, but increasing.

And one area in our hemisphere where rape is on the rise is in Haiti after the earthquake:

Thank heavens some of these women will be safer due to the security patrol, but this is an aftershock of the earthquake about which we have heard nothing. What a grave disservice to women that it is not being reported, and that these women are in such fear. Sadly, that is the case for many women, here and abroad.

On this day, this 99th celebration of International Women’s Day, let us renew our resolve to make meaningful changes in the lives of women in the United States, Haiti, Sudan, Bosnia, England, all around the globe. Let us be mindful of what other women endure in other countries, as well as at home. Let us work for social justice, equality, and abolition of violence against women. And may we not falter, for our sake, for the sake of our children, for the sake of humanity.

The last word on this day may come from a surprising source – NATO. Yes, that NATO. They make a suggestion behind which I can get 1,000%:

In the Old Testament, a young shepherd vanquished a formidable giant in the Valley of Elah.

At the 2010 Oscar ceremony, David again triumphed over Goliath with a stone called “The Hurt Locker.” The flood of awards moved viewers around the world. Underdog stories are always good for a tear or two, much like the joy many felt when the scrappy, almost-straight-to-DVD “Slumdog Millionaire” ate the field’s lunch last year.

You may be wondering why a column traditionally devoted to American politics is focusing on Hollywood. The answer is simple. Apart from the battles over legislation and election season, no event in the US is more political than the Oscars. This year was no exception.

It’s likely that Cameron’s epic “Avatar,” the highest-grossing movie of all time and the end result of over a decade of work, lost for the simple reason that Hollywood doesn’t much like James Cameron. Jealousy always comes into play. Stephen Spielberg was not nominated for Best Director for “The Color Purple”, which, like “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker”, was also nominated for 11 Oscars. It wasn’t until “Schindler’s List” that Spielberg received an award — because it was impossible not to give him the Oscar for creating a modern day masterpiece. Spielberg was a victim of his own success — too much, too soon, too much money, without waiting his turn like a good boy. Cameron is not only rich, but he’s also something of a pushy jerk.

So despite all the hoopla over Avatar’s box office gross and stories about (weirdo) viewers visiting shrinks because they didn’t live on Pandora or their frustrated desires to be reincarnated as Na’vi, the fact remained that Avatar was a glossed up “Ferngully” crossed with “Dances with Wolves” with special effects out of “The Lord of the Rings.” The script was a crude, cliche-ridden howler. It’s the CGI that kept people coming back for more, not the bio-babble plot featuring an intergallactic botanist.

It was apparent in the days leading up to the Oscars that “The Hurt Locker” was a serious contender and not just a flash in the pan. Conveniently timed hit pieces began popping up in the media, featuring interviews with Iraq war vets disputing the the realism of Jeremy Renner’s bomb squad officer. The campaign was similar to the 2002 unsuccessful hit job against “A Beautiful Mind,” a smear campaign so nasty that it drove the film’s real-life protagonist John Nash back into isolation.

2002 featured another smear campaign, this time aimed at Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost two legs and an arm after a grenade explosion, was defeated by Congressman Saxby Chambliss, a multiple draft dodger whose ad attacking Cleland intimating that he was a Saddam/bin Laden fellow traveler. Naturally the campaign was the brainchild of the master of dirty tricks Karl Rove. Like John Nash, Cleland spiraled into depression and disappeared from view until 2004, when he energetically campaigned for John Kerry.

Some may think that “The Hurt Locker’s” win is a political act, marking a turning point in recognition of Iraq films, all of which have done poorly at the box office. Nonsense. “The Hurt Locker” could have taken place in any war zone at any time in history. The drama of an adrenaline junkie who misses his family when he’s away from them and disarming bombs when he’s at home is a psychological drama, not a political one. If the Academy had wanted to send a political message, members could have awarded the superb “Redacted” or “In the Valley of Elah,” a movie featuring one of the most shockingly brave endings in the history of war films.

So Kathryn Bigelow becomes the first woman ever to win a “Best Director” Oscar for making an apolitical set in Iraq. For those who are bound to be disappointed that Bigelow didn’t do the Jane Fonda raised fist salute, don’t worry. Her powerful and subtle depiction of the horror of war and the PTSD that results from daily exposure to heat, desolation, danger and horror is profoundly moving. Had it been political the Academy would have been too craven and frightened to back it.

And you can take that to Price Waterhouse.

–
Crosspost from: The Pakistan Update

Exactly what defines a mental disorder is determined by what the psychiatric profession dictates. And what it decides—whether you and your family are mentally firm or otherwise—may well impact your life now or in the future. The list of disorders changes from time to time, and that time is here again.

Are you on the extensive list of new mental disorders?

A psychiatric diagnosis determines in large measure the treatment plan (including drug prescriptions), whether insurance companies will pay for that treatment, and whether disability claims will be honored.

The American Psychiatric Association recently released the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V (DSM). This is the first revision since 1994 and will be finalized in 2013. It can remove what it had previously listed as a disorder (homosexuality was cut in the last version) and it can add new ones. Already the sparks are flying within the professional as well as among outsiders.

It’s the new ones that have a lot of people clutching their heads.

Here is a partial list of proposed new mental disorders now under consideration:

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Preschool Children
Callous and Unemotional Specifier for Conduct Disorder
Learning Disabilities
Non-Suicidal Self Injury
Major Neurocognitive Disorder
Minor Neurocognitive Disorder
Mood Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition
Cannabis Withdrawal
Substance-Use Disorder
Amphetamine-Use Disorder
Cannabis-Use Disorder
Cocaine-Use Disorder
Hallucinogen-Use Disorder
Inhalant-Use Disorder
Nicotine-Use Disorder
Opioid-Use Disorder
Other (or Unknown) Substance-Use Disorder
Phencyclidine-Use Disorder
Polysubstance-Use Disorder
Sedative, Hypnotic, or Anxiolytic-Use Disorder
Psychosis Risk Syndrome
Hypersexual Disorder
Paraphilic Coercive Disorder
Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder in Women
Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder in Men
Genito-Pelvic Pain/Penetration Disorder
Binge Eating Disorder
Primary Central Sleep Apnea (previously Breathing Related Sleep Disorder)
Primary Alveolar Hypoventilation (previously Breathing Related Sleep Disorder)
Rapid Eye Movement Behavior Disorder
Restless Leg Syndrome
Circadian Rhythm Sleep Disorder – Advanced Sleep Phase Type
Disorder of Arousal
Circadiam Rhythm Sleep Disorder – Free-Running Type
Circadiam Rhythm Sleep Disorder – Irregular Sleep-Wake Type
Pathological Gambling

If we keep on adding to the already hundreds of other mental disorders slated to remain in the DSM, one is left to wonder what–if anything at all–would constitute sanity! For example, another new one, Mixed Anxiety Depressive Disorder, describes symptoms that are rather vague and common (we all have our downs and stresses), opening up an enormous potential pool of new patients. And that also means, of course, more business for service providers…

I share the following concerns about the proposed revision (and yes, we are entering into the subject matter of my day job, hence the passion):

1. More stigma. Considerable research shows that we continue to discriminate against people with mental problems, both socially and when it comes to employment opportunities. Psychiatric labels are stigmatizing, and confidentiality is difficult to guarantee anymore. So, should those, for example, with learning disabilities or restless leg syndrome be labled as mentally disordered? Parents are concerned because their children with Asperger’s Syndrome are currently slated to be grouped under “autism spectrum disorders,” a more stigmatizing diagnosis. Asperger’s is characterized by a lack of social skills (e.g., appear to lack empathy, are overly talkative, and have difficulty in reading social cues such as body language and facial expressions). Despite some similarities with autism, those with AS usually show normal language development and are often motivated to be social and friendly, characteristics that are almost the opposite of autism.

2. The dangers of “risk” labels. Whereas I can sympathize with taking preventive steps to avoid the full-blown manifestations of mental and physical problems, I have trouble with people at risk being labeled before the risk actually manifests itself. I can see young people being diagnosed with Psychosis Risk Syndrome, parents and teachers knowing about it, and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy along the way. That is, the kid thinks he’s headed for big trouble, the parents and teachers think so too, and treat him as such (also great way for them to avoid their responsibilities and shift all blame), so no one is surprised when the risks materialize. Correct diagnosis! And, is it even fair to stick a stigmatizing label on anyone who has not even been diagnosed with the “at risk” problem? We are all pre-something, after all.

3. Big Pharma will love all of these new diagnoses—more opportunities to create new products and be reimbursed for chemical symptom relief. Mild cases of diffuse disorders with symtoms that are common among people facing everyday stresses (mild depression or anxiety, for example) will prove to be a windfall to the already bulging profits enjoyed by drug companies. (Big Pharma rarely creates cures—not good for repeat business.)

4. Inclusion of behavior patterns that may not be disrupting or harmful. An example here is binge eating. Say you are upset with something going on in your life and find that eating makes you feel better. To be diagnosed as having a psychiatric eating disorder will now have a fairly low bar—briskly eating more within a 2 hour period than “most people would eat under similar circumstances,” feeling too full afterwards and doing it once a week for three months . Oops—I asked a few friends and most had fulfilled the criteria at some point, usually when stressed out.

5. Because people with legtimate psychiatric diagnoses may fall under the American Disabilities Act, will some of these diagnoses create more lawsuits because employers or other entities are not accommodating them? With my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek (although there have been plenty of crazy-ass law suits), I offer the following potential complaints:

Man with Hypersexual Disorder sues employer for not providing prostitutes during coffee breaks and the lunch hour.

Heavy marijuana smokers sue restaurant owner for hassling them about smoking pot at the dinner table.

Gambler seeks damages from the courts because his employer refused to give him time off to go to Las Vegas

OK, hopefully those are too whacky, but the DSM has legal and political consequences that need to be considered.

Having listed my criticisms, and in all fairness, we need a DSM. Without the “hard symptoms” we see in most physical illnesses, diagnoses and treatments of mental problems would be all over the place, and people who desperately need of services and treatments would not likely get any help from insurance companies or community agencies. The training mental health service providers would be a zoo.

The DSM gives mental and emotional problems solid credibility. But, I would hope that the psychiatric service providing community doesn’t ultimately include new ways to be labeled as mentally and emotionally impaired without a lot of soul-searching regarding the ramifications for vulnerable people (financially as well as emotionally) in true need of mental health services as well as avoiding netting those who don’t really need them.

That three more years remain for reflection and revision is a good thing.

Well, I’ll be! Rep. Eric Massa (official site and contact info) is not “going quietly into that good night,” and solemnly resigning from the House, despite iffy allegations that he sexually harassed a male staffer as well as his bout with cancer. Instead, Massa is alleging there was “an orchestrated campaign to force his resignation” because, with Massa gone, there’s one less vote to get to pass Obamacare in the House.

“I was set up for this from the very, very beginning. … The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against.”

“There is not a single member of the Democratic freshman class who is going to vote against this health care bill now that they’ve got me” …

Massa may have been a career naval officer but he is not obeying the demands of the bullying White House and Nancy Pelosi, who targeted the New York Democrat for his “no” vote on Obamacare. Here’s what Massa told a radio station today, via Roll Call:

“I’m not going to be a Congressman as of 5 o’clock [Monday] afternoon. The only way to stop that is for me to rescind my resignation. That’s the only way to stop it. And the only way that’s going to happen is if this becomes a national story.”

“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, ‘they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill, and now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass.’ You connect the dots,” Massa said Several times during the broadcast Massa raised the prospect of rescinding his resignation if national news media picked up on his story of being railroaded out of office by Democratic leaders. …

Among the updates below is a YouTube video/audio of the interview today:

Is Nancy Pelosi using an ethics investigation to embarrass Massa and force him out of office? This is nothing new to Massa. Check out what Rahm Emanuel did to Massa when he voted against the cap & trade bill. From “Massa Implicates Emanuel, Dem Leaders“:

“When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn’t heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983,” Massa said. “And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible.”

“If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I’m holding myself to and he should resign,” Massa said. (National Journal.)

Here’s more from Roll Call on today’s radio interview:

In response to a caller’s suggestion that Massa disseminate his allegations by contacting Fox News, Massa stated: “I can’t call Fox News. You guys gotta call Fox News. I can’t do it. … Here’s why. I’m in the center of this storm, so obviously I’m not objective.”

But Massa also repeatedly pointed out that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly referred to as the ethics panel, would continue its investigation if he remains in office.

“That’s very kind of you, but understand what that means for me,” Massa said in a response to a caller who suggested he not resign. “It means that a group of lawyers are going to try to rip me and my family limb from limb. And you’ve already seen it in the newspapers. … It’s a piranha feeding frenzy.”

Massa said on the show that the ethics investigation focused on sexually charged comments he made to an aide at a New Year’s Eve celebration, but charged he was unaware of an ethics committee investigation into the incident until after he had announced his retirement last week.

The House ethics committee confirmed Thursday that it is investigating unspecified allegations against Massa.

Massa surprised political observers when he announced on Wednesday that he would not run for re-election in November. He cited a recurrence of cancer as the reason for his decision, but after the ethics investigation was confirmed, Massa announced he would step down immediately.

The ethics allegations, according to Massa, don’t amount to much (more below). It is Steny Hoyer’s behavior that Massa finds shocking. From the National Journal:

Massa slammed House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer for discussing a House ethics committee inquiry, accusing Hoyer of lying in an effort to eliminate an opponent of health care. Hoyer said last week he heard in early Feb. about allegations against Massa, and that he told Massa’s office to report the allegations to the ethics committee.

“Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once,” Massa said. “Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever.”

Here is what Massa says happened with the male aide:

A complaint before the House ethics committee, he said, stemmed from a wedding Massa attended over New Years, when he made an inappropriate comment to an aide, according to Roll Call, which first reported the radio program.

Massa maintained his comments were inappropriate, but he blamed “political correctness” and accused Dems of a setup. Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back. …

Here’s a more detailed description of Massa’s view on the sexual harassment charge, via CNN:

(CNN) – Embattled Rep. Eric Massa said Sunday that the ethics investigation surrounding him stems from a sexually laced conversation he had at a New Year’s Eve wedding.

The New York Democrat said in his weekly radio show that he wasn’t told about the ethics probe until after he decided to retire and that he first learned the details of the investigation from news reports.

While at a wedding for one of his staff members, Massa said he danced with the bride and bridesmaid as cameras rolled.

“Absolutely nothing occurred,” while he was dancing, he said.

Massa said he then sat with some staff members who were all bachelors. In a conversation fueled by alcohol, one staff member “made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid,” Massa said.

Massa said he told the staffer beside him, “Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.”

Massa said he “tousled the guy’s hair and left – went to my room because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there,” Massa said.

“Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes,” he continued.

Massa said the staff member to whom he made the remark never told him he felt uncomfortable. Instead, Massa said, someone else went to another staff member who was uncomfortable for the first staff member. That person in turn went to the House Ethics Committee.

“It was a third-party political correctness statement,” Massa charged, reiterating that his information comes not from the ethics committee, but from what he read in newspapers. …

Update: Roll Call has a transcript of Massa’s description of events at the wedding party.

If Massa’s version of events is true, this is indeed a tempest in a teapot.

For more on Massa’s statements today, check out Memeorandum.com’s collection of news and blog posts.

You can hear the audio of Massa’s interview today — if it’s available. Right now, the site is at capacity.

You can contact Rep. Massa at his D.C. office. From his House Web site:

Washington DC Office
1208 Longworth House Office
Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3161
Fax: (202) 226-6599