Psyche, Science, and Society

Response to my article “Paranoia, depression, or a world of hope”: Pretty much bullshit!

Paul Smaldino was sent my article Paranoia, depression, or a world of hope: Destructiveness and struggle for a better world by someone who liked it. He did not. In fact, he disliked it so much, he responded with the following critique (posted with permission):

This article is one a large contingency in which a liberal, educated person spells out a generic laundry list of problems with the world, grievances with the government, and then gives a two-sentence message about hope and not giving up.

Frankly, I’m sick of this. It’s wishy washy, and I think it misses the point. You can be for “Peace and Justice,” but that doesn’t change the fact that the world we live in, with very few exceptions, does not abide by any rational tenets of peace and justice. You can hope that the world will get better, you can stand on your street corner and proclaim that we should stop polluting and driving SUVs and we should give out free universal health care and we should stop all the senseless killing throughout the world. If every man, woman, and child just stopped what they were doing and yelled “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it any more!” then the world could start on a journey to a better place. Tra la la.

But that’s not gonna happen. Not in this lifetime at any rate. Soldz identifies three components of the sad state of affairs: our massive destructive capabilities, our fear of both outsiders and each other, and our uncertainty as to what the future holds. I agree that with our country and others having access to weapons of incredible destructive power, we have all the more to fear. Just being alive and aware awakens a fear of death, a fear of loss, a fear of pain. But I think that what’s so very dangerous about the modern world is not the overwhelming uncertainty felt by many of us, but rather the overwhelming certainty felt by many of them. George Bush is certain that God wants him to do as he does. Tens of millions of Americans are certain that they will be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven for acting as they do. Pat Robertson is certain that God sent Katrina and AIDS to punish homosexuals. Many Christians believe that the end is at hand, so we can destroy the environment with impunity. Osama bin Laden is certain that God wants the infidels destroyed. The 19 men who hijacked planes on 9-11, and the hundreds of suicide bombers who kill hundreds almost every day in the middle east were certain that when they die they will be richly rewarded and that they will be greeted by 72 virgins and all their friends will be there.

If I am certain that I am right, that you are wrong, and that they creator of the universe will reward me for punishing, or even killing you, then I am a fool if I don’t. To steal (and mangle) a phrase from Sam Harris, who wrote The End of Faith, with all the biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons about, with all the constant killings and torture and mutilations happening almost daily, we can no longer afford to tolerate absolute faith, faith that is unavailable for questioning or altering, faith that he is right and she is wrong and he can, he must, kill her.

Faith is not the only enemy. Human nature alone breeds fear and distrust of the out group. American free enterprise spawns the ability to hold incalculable wealth contingent upon the sanctioned poverty of others. There are a million things that are fucked up in this country and in every country. Ignorance, intolerance, overtolerance, poverty, greed, etc. 40 years ago Kurt Vonnegut pleaded “For the love of God, be kind!” We’re not. We’re not gonna be.

I hate to be such a pessimist, but the facts are in. If you want to say you are “for peace and justice” then you have to figure out what that means. Because it’s largely an empty phrase. I’m for chocolate-covered strawberries growing from magical plants on every corner, for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and for a return to unregulated stewardess uniforms on airplanes. But being “for” something is useless unless you couple that with a realistic view of the world and not only a vision of what the world could be, but a plan for getting it to be that way. Soldz says that by thinking positive we can “start the difficult process of transforming that destructive energy into a constructive force that builds ties to others and together with them creates an alternative.” Great. That kind of talk belongs on a late night infomercial. Because, like so much political rhetoric, it’s pretty much bullshit.

Thank you and good night.

I’m flattered that Paul found my little piece stimulating enough to critique. The funny thing is, I mostly agree with him. ”What to do” is the major issue. That didn’t happen to be the topic of that article, as I saw it.

At the same time, I didn’t think I was saying, “think positive,” but, rather, indicating how hard a task it will be to counter the terror which plays so well in our psyches. Paul says: “40 years ago Kurt Vonnegut pleaded ‘For the love of God, be kind!’ We’re not. We’re not gonna be.” I agree. So how do we create a decent world, given that fact? I don’t know, but I look for any indications I can find.

I hope when Paul wakes up he’ll give us some non-bullshit ideas. I look forward to them. In the meantime, dreaming of “chocolate-covered strawberries growing from magical plants on every corner” is not nothing.

1 comment June 11th, 2006

Americans want universal healthcare, says Congress-appointed committee

Even Republicans are starting to get the message. America’s healthcare system is in crisis and getting worse. It seems the abominable Medicare drug bill of 2003 also created a commission to look into what Americans want for healthcare. This commission’s conclusion: universal health coverage.

The federal government should guarantee that all Americans have basic health insurance coverage, says a committee set up by Congress to find out what people want when it comes to health care.

“Assuring health care is a shared social responsibility,” says the interim report of the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, a 14-member committee that went to 50 communities and heard from 23,000 people.

While the committee doesn’t say how this coverage should be funded, what they do say is interesting, even amazing, given the committee’s origins:

George Grob, the executive director of the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, said the group was not asked to say specifically how to get to universal coverage. However, the group did recommend that financing strategies be based on principles of fairness and shared responsibility. The strategies should draw on revenue streams such as enrollee contributions, income taxes, so-called “sin taxes” and payroll taxes, the report said.

“We’re already paying for health care for everybody who gets it, including people who don’t have health insurance coverage who are taken care of when they go to the hospital,” Grob said.

The group’s stated values and principals were as important as the recommendations, Grob said. Those principals said all Americans should have a set of health coverage benefits guaranteed by law. Those benefits should be “portable and independent of health status, working status, age (and) income,” the report said.

Add comment June 10th, 2006

Email to the CEO of the American Psychological Association

I have just sent this email to Norm Anderson, Ph.D., CEO (nanderson@apa.org) of the American Psychological Association. It is my understanding that the APA Board is meeting this weekend. I ask that all psychologists send similar emails protesting psychologists’ involvement in torture at Guantanamo and the various secret detention facilities around the world.

Dear Dr. Anderson,

I am deeply concerned that the Pentagon is switching to only having psychologists participate in interrogation teams at Guantanamo and other such facilities. The New York Times reported Wednseday that the reason for this decision is that the American Psychiatric Association has condemned its members participation in such actions, whereas my association, the APsychologicalA has refused to do so, coming out only with an ambiguous statement.

This is a crisis of immense proportions for the profession of psychology. Should the APA not come out with an unequivocal statement that members cannot participate in interrogations at Guantanamo, the profession will loose all moral standing around the world. After all, Guanatanamo is a facility which has been condemned as illegal and as engaing in torture by Amnesty Internations, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the UN Committee on Torture. I ask tat APA make a clear, unequivocal statement that participation in interrogations or other involvement in mistreatment of detainess at Guantanamo and other military facilities is incompatible with ethical practice and with membership in APA.

The APA leadership should know that there is now a move among APA members to withhold dues until such time that the Association takes definitive action in opposition to the involvement of psychologists that contributes to the mistreatment of detainees and prisoners held by the U.S. military.

I hope you will convey to the Board the urgency of this situation before APA is torn apart.

Sincerely,

Stephen Soldz
Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development
Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis
1581 Beacon St.
Brookline, MA 02131

Add comment June 9th, 2006

Greg Palast: Unreported: The Zarqawi Invitation

Greg Palast has sent the following background essay on the assassination of al-Zarqawi:

They got him — the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something’s gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi … who invited him into Iraq in the first place?

If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam’s Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.

The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don’t unpack, Jack — you’re fired.

What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner’s job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.

Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. “Peace” and “Democracy” were the slogans.

“My preference,” Garner told me in his understated manner, “was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections.”

But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we’d just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off “all [Iraq's] state assets” — and Iraq, that’s just about everything — “especially,” said The Plan, “the oil and supporting industries.” Especially the oil.

There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq’s banks, and weirdly, changing it’s copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation’s assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements — copyright and tax code changes — was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s associate Grover Norquist.)

But Garner didn’t think much of The Plan, he told me when we met a year later in Washington. He had other things on his mind. “You prevent epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine.”

Seizing title and ownership of Iraq’s oil fields was not on Garner’s must-do list. He let that be known to Washington. “I don’t think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people.” He added, “It’s their country … their oil.”

Apparently, the Secretary of Defense disagreed. So did lobbyist Norquist. And Garner incurred their fury by getting carried away with the “democracy” idea: he called for quick elections — within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad.

But Garner’s 90-days-to-elections commitment ran straight into the oil sell-off program. Annex D of the plan indicated that would take at least 270 days — at least 9 months.

Worse, Garner was brokering a truce between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. They were about to begin what Garner called a “Big Tent” meeting to hammer out the details and set the election date. He figured he had 90 days to get it done before the factions started slitting each other’s throats.

But a quick election would mean the end of the state-asset sell-off plan: An Iraqi-controlled government would never go along with what would certainly amount to foreign corporations swallowing their entire economy. Especially the oil. Garner had spent years in Iraq, in charge of the Northern Kurdish zone and knew Iraqis well. He was certain that an asset-and-oil grab, “privatizations,” would cause a sensitive population to take up the gun. “That’s just one fight you don’t want to take on right now.”

But that’s just the fight the neo-cons at Defense wanted. And in Rumsfeld’s replacement for Garner, they had a man itching for the fight. Paul Bremer III had no experience on the ground in Iraq, but he had one unbeatable credential that Garner lacked: Bremer had served as Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates.

In April 2003, Bremer instituted democracy Bush style: he canceled elections and appointed the entire government himself. Two months later, Bremer ordered a halt to all municipal elections including the crucial vote to Shia seeking to select a mayor in the city of Najaf. The front-runner, moderate Shia Asad Sultan Abu Gilal warned, “If they don’t give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for long.” Local Shias formed the “Mahdi Army,” and within a year, provoked by Bremer’s shutting their paper, attacked and killed 21 U.S. soldiers.

The insurgency had begun. But Bremer’s job was hardly over. There were Sunnis to go after. He issued “Order Number One: De-Ba’athification.” In effect, this became “De-Sunni-fication.”

Saddam’s generals, mostly Sunnis, who had, we learned, secretly collaborated with the US invasion and now expected their reward found themselves hunted and arrested. Falah Aljibury, an Iraqi-born US resident who helped with the pre-invasion brokering, told me, “U.S. forces imprisoned all those we named as political leaders,” who stopped Iraq’s army from firing on U.S. troops.

Aljibury’s main concern was that busting Iraqi collaborators and Ba’athist big shots was a gift “to the Wahabis,” by which he meant the foreign insurgents, who now gained experienced military commanders, Sunnis, who now had no choice but to fight the US-installed regime or face arrest, ruin or death. They would soon link up with the Sunni-defending Wahabi, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was committed to destroying “Shia snakes.”

And the oil fields? It was, Aljibury noted, when word got out about the plans to sell off the oil fields (thanks to loose lips of the US-appointed oil minister) that pipelines began to blow. Although he had been at the center of planning for invasion, Aljibury now saw the greed-crazed grab for the oil fields as the fuel for a civil war that would rip his country to pieces:

“Insurgents,” he said, “and those who wanted to destabilize a new Iraq have used this as means of saying, ‘Look, you’re losing your country. You’re losing your leadership. You’re losing all of your resources to a bunch of wealthy people. A bunch of billionaires in the world want to take you over and make your life miserable.’ And we saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, of course, built on — built on the premise that privatization [of oil] is coming.”

General Garner, watching the insurgency unfold from the occupation authority’s provocations, told me, in his understated manner, “I’m a believer that you don’t want to end the day with more enemies than you started with.”

But you can’t have a war president without a war. And you can’t have a war without enemies. “Bring ‘em on,” our Commander-in-Chief said. And Zarqawi answered the call.

**********

Greg Palast is the author of Armed Madhouse out this week from Penguin Dutton, from which this is adapted.

Armed Madhouse: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ‘08, No Child’s Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.

Add comment June 9th, 2006

Psychology, profession in shame

The New York Times reports that the Defense Department is switching and will now use only psychologists, and not psychiatrists, to aid their torture efforts [they of course, use a euphemism] in Guantanamo. The reason is that the American Psychiatric Association has clearly stated that psychiatrists should not participate in interrogations at Guantanamo, whereas the American Psychological Association has taken a mealy-mouthed position that allows psychologists to do whatever they want. Presumably, the American Psychological Association is too addicted to its closeness to power to take any stand on one of the defining moral issues of our time.

This is a moment of crisis for the profession of psychology. Will psychologists stand for human decency, or will the profession become the whores of the Pentagon and the Guantanamo torturers? If psychologists as a group do not roundly condemn the gulag in Guantanamo and force the American Psychological Association to change its position, the profession will have given up standing for human decency and the dignity of the individual. In that case, American psychologists will deserve the badge of shame that we will receive around the world.

Here is the New York Times article in full:

June 7, 2006
Military Alters the Makeup of Interrogation Advisers
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, June 6 — Pentagon officials said Tuesday that they would try to use only psychologists, and not psychiatrists, to help interrogators devise strategies to get information from detainees at places like Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The new policy follows by little more than two weeks an overwhelming vote by the American Psychiatric Association discouraging its members from participating in those efforts.
Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, told reporters that the new policy favoring the use of psychologists over psychiatrists was a recognition of differing positions taken by their respective professional groups.
The military had been using psychiatrists and psychologists alike on behavioral science consultation teams, called “biscuit” teams because of the acronym, to advise interrogators on how best to obtain information from prisoners.
But Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein, recent past president of the American Psychiatric Association, noted in an interview that the group adopted a policy in May unequivocally stating that its members should not be part of the teams.
The counterpart group for psychologists, the American Psychological Association, has endorsed a different policy. It said last July that its members serving as consultants to interrogations involving national security should be “mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts that require special ethical consideration.”
Stephen Behnke, director of ethics for the organization, said psychologists knew not to participate in activities that harmed detainees. But Dr. Behnke also said the group believed that helping military interrogators made a valuable contribution because it was part of an effort to prevent terrorism.
Former military interrogators at Guantánamo told The New York Times last year that some psychiatrists and psychologists had advised them on how to “break” detainees to make them more cooperative. The former interrogators said they had been counseled on how to use a detainee’s fears and longings to increase distress. One example was their taking advantage of a prisoner’s fear of the dark, known from his medical records.
Dr. Winkenwerder, the Pentagon official, disputed those assertions Tuesday, saying he did not believe that such counseling had occurred. He said the biscuit teams gave interrogators advice only on how to establish a positive rapport with detainees.

1 comment June 8th, 2006

Iraq Veterans Against the War calls for support for first officer to refuse deployment to Iraq

The following has been received from Iraq Veterans Against the War:

Add comment June 5th, 2006

Greg Palast on ‘Howl’

From Greg Palast on the 50th anniversary of Howl:

News Flash from the Asylum

Today is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl“.

You know:

“I see the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.”

Just before his death, and into my third or fourth midlife crisis, I decided to become a writer. Couldn’t decide between poetry and investigative journalism. Ginsberg read my poetry. He suggested journalism. And then he said, “You know, Greg, I’m an investigative reporter, too.”

Yes, he was. In 1956, Ginsberg sat at a kitchen table in San Francisco and wrote that his friends were going crazy. They could still hear the voice of Joe McCarthy ranting and, out the window, count the Pentagon contractors polishing new war heads. In an America gone mad, insanity was the best defense.

“The soul,” he reported, “should never die ungodly in an armed madhouse.”

And that’s still the news.

***
Greg Palast talks journalism a la Ginsberg with Laura Flanders tonight at 9:45 EDT on Radio Nation — check your Air America and Community Station listings. Armed Madhouse dispatches form the Front Lines of the class war will be released this Tuesday, 6-6-06 - for more information see www.GregPalast.com.

1 comment June 3rd, 2006

Plea to European Parliament: Let the voices of the victims of sexual traficking be heard!

My friend, Betsy Kawamura, has penned the following appeal to the European Parliament about a vote they are conducting regarding the involvement of victims of sexual traficking as experts in attempts to control this violence. Let the voices of the victims be heard, she argues:

For Tomorrow’s Vote - Patricia, Ms. Prets, Ms. De Keyser- Again, for Your Kind Attention…Thank You

Hello..Thank you for your attention to this matter again. E. Horstkoetter did mention again that R. R. from the Green party had tabled this ammendment for Voting tommorrow. As I said below, I really believe that people like myself - former victims/survivors - have SO LITTLE CHANCE, opportunities to ‘Speak Up’ about ourselves in society without being RE-stigmatized, re-marginalized.

MANY of us have tried - only to find ourselves RE-STIGMATIZED and to find ourselves in financial and social dilemmas no matter HOW hard we try sometimes.  I find it a sheer irony that when everyone at EU Parliament and other ‘womens’ agencies’ seems to be ‘Fighting’ trafficking and abuse of women, whether in civil or war zones, we, the actual past victims/survivors do NOT get supported, paid or acknowledged for our current work and contributions, or WORSE yet, lack opportunities to Speak Up about this?? Why is this, please ?? Are we to consider ourselves any ‘less’ competent or deserving than you?? We would like to know this..

WHEN are women like us going to have a chance to be RESPECTED and heard and supported at EU parliament level for our contribution in civilian as well as conflict zones to PREVENT further tragedies ?? Isn’t this what you and your colleagues are fighting/working for ?? For people like myself - past survivors of sexual abuse, prostitution to be able to have HUMAN DIGNITY and find ourselves jobs, financial security and a place in society again whether in war zones or non war zones, especially to help others ? We have the human right to have a voice in this, now.

I also know of MANY CASES where former prostituted women had been fired from their ‘new jobs’ outside of the sex industry because there was NO PROTECTION for them against descrimination. Imagine this happening to the Thousands of women in Bosnia and other war zones, especially in Iraq and other Muslim nations who were raped, mutlilated - trying to ‘create a new life’ for themselves in society in finding non-sex industry jobs. NO - they face Imminent dangers of RE-stigmatization to their graves. Do you think they are having an ‘easy’ time ?? Health care and basic ’social benefits’ in the form of pills are NOT enough. Pills do NOT ‘eradicate’ stigmatization from society, my ladies.

Also, PLEASE consider HOW many ex trafficked/prostituted women are DENIED chances of good, healthy relationships and marriages ?? I can well advise you that MANY, many formerly prostituted/trafficked women have COUNTLESS number of husbands, relatives, etc. who have THROWN out any ‘ties’ to these women. I can rest assure you that I, personally have experienced MANY of the things mentioned above. HOW do these women tell their husbands, children about what has happened WITHOUT the risk of being tossed out or killed by them? This goes for war zones and our ‘modern society’ here , ladies…

Do you KNOW how difficult it is to ‘find’ an ‘understanding’ boyfriend/husband partner as a former victim of sexual violence, prostitution/trafficking ?? It is AS difficult as finding a romantic partner for an HIV/AIDS person — BUT unlike HIV/AIDS situation, we have NO REAL voice/power/support as victims/survivors of sexual violence. WHAT are the women in Bosnia, Iraq and other war zones going to do ?? Can you just imagine the FATE of Muslim women who have been sexually abused ?? They become OFTEN honour killed by their families. We will CONTINUE to be stigmatized, marginalized from society and experience ‘Feminized Poverty’ as M Keyser so aptly writes UNLESS we are given power, support and a VOICE, tomorrow, Please.

Please, kindly, unless YOUR team can give us a ‘fair voice’ or a fair chance at this tomorrow, it will be become INCREASINGLY difficult to find any ‘voice’ or place for us. RE-stigmatization is a REALITY for us that is so incredibly painful in conflict and civilian zones. There is NO ‘pill’ to take away our pain, ladies. Muslim women survivors especially have NO support when they are sexually abused, prostituted and/or trafficked. This should be an important part of your agenda, please.

Society ‘automatically’ classifies past victims of sexual abuse - especially via prostitution and trafficking - as being a. ‘less intelligent’ b. are of ‘lower class’ c. ‘dirty’ and ‘outcasts’. This is why you SELDOM see past victims ’speak out’.

Please kindly give us a chance to be ‘heard’ tomorrow at the Vote and to ‘come out’ to help and heal others. Thank you very kindly and looking for support.

Cheers and yours truly — B. Kawamura +44 (0)7752 411458, London.

…. you can find some background material on me on Google search - betsy kawamura + okinawa + US military — Thank you kindly.

Add comment June 1st, 2006