I don't know whether it will surprise you that I am not particularly concerned with whether Orange Julius has a diagnosable mental illness, or if so what specifically that might be. And I think that Bandy Lee, the Yale forensic psychiatrist who recently briefed members of congress on the question, and who does think it is very concerning, makes my case.
In the linked interview, she says that the Resident is dangerous, but that she can't diagnose him without personally interviewing him. However she does think that he should be made to submit to a psychiatric evaluation because it's critical to determine if he is mentally ill. At the same time, most mentally ill people aren't dangerous and most dangerous people aren't mentally ill.
Right. So what difference does it make? We already know that his behavior is outrageous and terrifying, that he's incompetent, that he makes terroristic threats, disgraces the nation and demean his office, and that people are scared to death that he'll start World War III in a snit over some slight, real or perceived. Do I need to give him a label from the DSM-V? What would that change?
Congress has ample grounds to impeach him right now. But they won't do it. He'd probably merit a label of narcissistic personality disorder and likely be diagnosed with moderate dementia. So what? Everybody knows that already. Putting a label on it won't change anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The left appears desperate to oust President Trump at any cost, even using unethical behavior on the part of mental health professionals to achieve this goal (and yes, APA standards say this is certainly unethical).
They tried this with Barry Goldwater even before the election. Goldwater sued and was awarded $75,000 by the jury which was a lot of money at that time.
You can't just make shit up because you don't agree with or don't like someone. I hope Trump sues for defamation although he probably won't because of his position.
Congress has ample grounds to impeach him right now.
No investigative body has determined anything that would remotely rise to the high crimes and/or misdemeanors standard required to entertain an impeachment of the president.
If, in the future that happens, I'll be the first to agree that he needs to go. For now, it appears that the left just wants to overturn the election.
As a side note, Senator Al Franken needs to sue as do all of the other people, including the Hollywood types, that were severely damaged by this recent spate of guilt by accusation mentality.
None of this is the American way.
Ha! Gay Boy Bob thinks--I guess--that the "American way" is to enable authoritarianism and place the Resident above the rule of law. There is plenty the Rumpster has already done that is impeachable, from unilateral bombing of Syria (unauthorized by Congress, which can solely declare war), to breaking the emoluments clause of the Constitution, to obstruction of justice, shortly to be legally documented.
Let's face it: the Rumpster could do anything at all and a lot of people--GBB included, along with Orrin Hatch, Mike Pence and many others--would defend him. This is the entire problem we face now--not that there is a shortage of impeachable and, indeed, criminal offenses on the part of the sick asshole who occupies the White House. Let Trump murder, embezzle, libel ... it's all okay with people like Gay Boy Bob. It's all defensible and unprovable. See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/opinion/faust-on-the-potomac.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
And now Gay Boy Bob--who doesn't acknowledge my comments on his comments, though he does read mine ... is now trying to proofread what he writes, though he's still ignorant and makes typos and uses English ungrammatically, as in his above posts.
He blanket-labels "the left." Is Gay Boy Bob a Fox Propaganda Network enthusiast? Probably. Is he a plant? Perhaps. Does he want to propose a sexual relationship with Cervantes? Perhaps. (I know GBB hasn't had sex in a long time.) Good luck with that last one. As far as I know Cervantes is heterosexual and eschews romantic interests with idiots, much less Republicans.
Here's how it works:
1) Cervantes, a highly educated, rational person and policy analyst, writes informed, humorous, sardonic and cogent posts.
2) Gay Boy Bob, an unidentified, perverse misanthrope who attaches himself in a Pavlovian manner to this blog whose politics doesn't understand, reflexively responds with preposterous responses that he tries to embellish with a veneer of reason and vocabulary for which, alas, he possesses no gift.
3) I frequently respond to take the methane out of GBB's mentally deranged gasbag. Occasionally, Cervantes attempts to put him in his place. But it's difficult, because people whose minds are already in the dumpster have no perceivable shame or conscience--or sense of humor. Or genuine irony.
GBB reminds me of Orange Julius, but without the egomania. His posts are tiresome, predictable, irrational, superfluous and annoying. He likes to be annoying. So his posts will continue. He'd rather be annoying than open his fucking eyes and ears.
GBB -- Since the US Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment, a President can be impeached for anything a sufficient number of representatives believes is grounds for impeachment. It is pretty clear that an impeachment would not be subject to judicial review. So, the House can certainly impeach Trump at any time they want to.
I, too, hope Trump sues for defamation. Of course, if he did, it would almost certainly be decided very quickly since as Presiden, and as a certified public figure before the he assumed presidency, he would have a hard time winning a libel suit in the first place. I imagine a well-crafted brief by the defense would result in a quick dismissal. If our dreams came true and the suit proceeded, it would be a spectacle for the ages. As I'm sure you know, truth is an absolute defense against libel. It would be a thrill to see him try to disprove the "libels" directed against him.
Since the US Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment, a President can be impeached for anything a sufficient number of representatives believes is grounds for impeachment. It is pretty clear that an impeachment would not be subject to judicial review. So, the House can certainly impeach Trump at any time they want to.
True that, Mark.
Any president is subject to being impeached and the determination of whether the charges are true and meet the standard for impeachment lies solely with the House.
That being said, there is a control on the House and that is what would look just to the public and what would look like stupid partisan bullshit. No one's going to impeach a president unless they can offer up a reasonable explanation.
As I'm sure you know, truth is an absolute defense against libel. It would be a thrill to see him try to disprove the "libels" directed against him.
I've been through a civil trial and it's not as clean and simple as you think. Plaintiff would demonstrate damage and defendants would likely have much of the burden of proving what they wrote was true.
It's disappointing that you would promote what is clearly an unethical path for your agenda.
https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry
We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.
Post a Comment