JGatsby

This is so insane. Obama went to the guys house once! When he did Ayers was a respected professor of education and member of the democratic activist community. Please, please, please people of PA don't be fooled by this nonsense. Vote for Obama so we can finally put a stake through the monstrosity that the Clinton campaign has become (Samantha Power was so right) and Hillary can storm off and join the Lieberman or Republican party. posted 04/19/2008 at 11:36:27

Maybe everyone else realizes this but it just occurred to me: the incredible irony here given that way back when MoveOn was first created its sole purpose was to support president Clinton and to get the MSM and the country in general to stop focusing on trivial stupid issues like who the president got a BJ from (kind of reminds me of flag pins and reverends who make inflamatory speeches). Hillary Clinton has finally come full circle and has morphed into a republican. posted 04/19/2008 at 11:06:58

I'm kind of ambivalent. On the one hand this reinforces what I've been telling people for a long time. In spite of the fact that on paper there is little difference between Obama's and Clinton's positions in reality I think Obama is more likely to follow up on the things that matter to activists. For example, really try to get us out of Iraq ASAP. Where as Clinton if elected will triangulate and worry a lot more about her corporate sponsors than what the people want. On the other hand I really hate this kind of crap where things said in private are made public. I didn't like it when it was done to Obama and I don't like it when its done to Clinton. posted 04/18/2008 at 19:09:53

Myth indeed. Virtually every poll shows Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton by 5 points or more. Of course that gap has closed since Clinton has been running as if she were campaigning for McCain's VP. posted 04/18/2008 at 15:10:17

Whoever is monitoring this part of the blog please note this person has posted the same thing about ten times. posted 04/19/2008 at 13:09:38

Mr. Krugman, your paper gave us the lies that paved the way for the Iraq war. Real progressives are sick of Republocrats who provide essentially the same ideas as the neo-cons only with abortion rights. Obama offers a real opportunity for change and we are going to take it. posted 04/18/2008 at 11:30:38

You are right I am nervous, but not in the way you mean. Even if Clinton has a blow out in PA (which looks very unlikely) she will still be very far behind in the delegate count with no chance to win. What I am nervous about is that she will never admit defeat and will continue personal and "silly season" attacks about people that Obama may have said hello to or had a cup of coffee with or whatever. For the record I and most Obama supporters expect this from the Republicans but when they come from our own party they are infinitely more destructive. Why the Clinton supporters can't see that is beyond me. So what I'm afraid of is that Clinton will continue to tear apart the democratic party and will so damage Obama that he loses and we get four more years of neocon policies via grandpa McCain. The country and the world simply can't survive that. posted 04/18/2008 at 11:38:23

Well, its pretty subjective but I think Emma does just fine in Harry Potter and while I agree that Scarlett is quite beautiful I don't think she is that great of an actress. She was awful IMHO in The Black Dahlia. The only movies I thought she excelled in were Ghost World and Lost in Translation, both when she was still a girl. posted 04/18/2008 at 15:27:35

Actually 5.2 is a fairly decent sized quake. I was in a 5.9 quake in LA at the top of an old building and I thought the whole thing was going to come down. The reason you didn't feel it is that West Salem is pretty far from Chicago. Its in the far southeast corner of the state roughly as far south as St. Louis. posted 04/18/2008 at 10:15:21

There was a movie made about the raising of the flag on Iwo a long time ago. As I recall virtually every one of those guys ended up with mental illness, substance abuse, homeless, etc. Another example of how America really treats its war heros. Throw them in the garbage when they are used up but don't dare not wear your flag pin or otherwise mess with one of our sacred symbols. I think its worth pointing out that until the end of WWII the US didn't even have a regular standing peace time army. The founding fathers realized that having a powerful full time military would be too tempting to leaders to meddle as well as sucking up needed resources. Where are Tom Paine and Jefferson when we need them? posted 04/18/2008 at 18:51:26

Looks like "silly season" is now expanding beyond the presidential race. "How dare you defile my sacred image!" Oh wait, first I have to say the boilerplate liberal apology for even deigning to disagree with someone who was in the military. I honor their service. In this case though I really do. WWII, unlike Iraq and Vietnam, was one of the few truly just wars and those guys are rightly proud of what they did. My uncle was a Marine in that war and my dad was in the Navy. I loved hearing their stories. Anyway, now back to my point. This country is going through a time that is going to be one of the truly existential challenges to our republic. IMHO right up there with the Civil war. We are facing a perfect storm of global warming, peak oil, massive deficit, and a world that mostly hates us due to the evil scum that we let take over our government for the last seven years. Our response can be to turn away from democracy and embrace facism (and I don't use that term lightly). Part of facism is worshiping symbols like the flag, fatherland/homeland over ideas and reason. Or we can embrace someone like Obama who talks to us like adults and actually tries to unify us to deal with our problems. posted 04/18/2008 at 10:28:19

I love Rachel!!!!!! She is the kind of pundit that the left needs lots more of. Smart, knows her facts, and doesn't let right wing blow holes bully her. "Let me make my point and then you can cut me off" And then he takes his ball and runs on home to mommy. What a tool. Way to go Rachel!!!! posted 04/17/2008 at 21:55:10

Sorry, I disagree. I want to be clear that I'm an Obama supporter but under normal circumstances I wouldn't give this story any attention or care at all about what Hillary said in a closed door meeting. Everyone who has been under pressure and has significant responsibility has said things like this that they don't really mean. As an example, I used to be an IT consultant. Once in a while in closed door meetings with my team we would say the equivalent of "screw em" about our clients. We never meant it. We were just blowing off steam. I'm sure the same is true of what Senator Clinton said. The only reason this rates attention in my book is because of the ridiculous fuss that has been made about the so called "elitist" comments made by Obama. In that "silly season" spirit Clinton's comments are relevant. If she were behaving like a decent democrat and attacking Obama on issues of policy rather than behaving as if she were running for McCain's VP I, and I think most Obama supporters, would never care a bit about these kinds of stories. posted 04/18/2008 at 09:50:29

Carol, I respectfully disagree. Not that I think Bush isn't an idiot. Calling him that is probably an insult to the idiot population. But he doesn't really run the country. Its not for nothing that the CIA's nickname for Cheney is Edgar (as in Edgar Bergen famous ventrilioquist). Cheney and friends aren't idiots. They are selfish, short sighted, idealogues who are destroying the country and even the world in order to maximize their profit and the profit of the oil and defense industries. Gee, do I sound bitter? posted 04/17/2008 at 18:29:58

Good intentions. Terrible idea. Lets make a brief list of some of the major problems the next president and congress are going to have to deal with: global warming, war in Iraq, most people in the mideast hate us (for very good reasons), peak oil, healthcare for an aging population, an out of control deficit, a crumbling infrastructure... With all that you want them to spend precious time amending the constitution with language that will have absolutely no concrete impact on anyone? Maybe you haven't gotten to this class yet but the founding fathers wisely made it very difficult to amend the constitution. All that effort would be better spent developing real solutions to the real problems we face. Finally, trying to do this will set a precedent that will provide encouragement for a flag burning amendment and/or a right to life amendment. Two incredibly bad ideas. posted 04/17/2008 at 19:51:26

"Until we have a better political system and a more attentive electorate, we are not in a position to dismiss the type of debate that we had last night" How are we supposed to get a better political system when the people who are supposed to report on and analyze the candidates and their positions give us nonsense like this? You say that people need to demonstrate that they want something better. Have you taken a glimpse at the ABC web site and seen the avalanche of posts decrying their ridiculous debate? What more do the people have to do? Storm ABC by force and burn it to the ground? Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea. (Just kidding, don't come and get me homeland security) You are part of the problem. An academic apologist for garbage journalism. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:40:35

Well the little brat got her 15 minutes of fame. What a joke. The art world is so vacant and out of ideas. Its been taken over by the money people and its all about making some kind of gimick. Real art is dead. posted 04/18/2008 at 11:25:03

Mr. Wilson, have you lost your mind? How in the world does that comment show contempt for our professionals in the security community? Well I guess if you think his original comment showed contempt for middle America you can believe anything. Its really sad that people who still support Senator Clinton seem willing to manipulate facts and arguments with no regard for truth or logic. I am very encouraged by the recent polls however that show for once that Americans aren't falling for this BS. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:34:24

Right on LeJax. I am one of those people who defended President Clinton almost daily against the trumped up charges of the right and the invasions into his personal life. When this race began I was leaning toward Senator Clinton because I thought she would have the best chance to win and also the idea of a woman president was a plus. I first started shaking my head when I saw the "story" about Obama writing some essay in Kindergarten saying he wanted to be president. Then as Ms. Clinton started falling behind the ridiculous smears started coming one after another. At the same time I started paying more attention to Obama's speeches and the refreshing way he tried to stay above what he calls the issues of the "silly season" and focus on things that matter. When I voted for Obama in the primary it was the first time in my adult life (shades of Mrs. Obama) that I was voting FOR a presidential candidate rather than picking the lesser of the evils. Its so sad to see how Senator Clinton has demolished her credibility and her husband's legacy. posted 04/16/2008 at 17:54:18

The chances of muslims somehow doing a reverse crusades and conquering the west are nil. Its interesting that you mention Saudi Arabia. They are probably the most rigorous, longest existing, anti-woman, anti-free thought state in the world. And who do you think set them up? The UK followed later by the US as we took over their empire. We created the Saudi state and handed it over to their monarchy. We have been propping it up ever since. We let them oppress their people as long as they were a bullwark first against the French and Germans and then against the Russians. As long as they kept "our" oil safe. Its ironic that now people like you see Islam as something that wants to do to us what we have done to them for over half a century. Of course the extreme nut jobs like Bin Laden may talk about establishing a Caliphate but in reality if you look at what they are really pissed at and what they really want its for us to leave them alone. As the world starts running out of resources our only hope is to start working together. If we give in to your hatred we are all doomed. posted 04/15/2008 at 22:48:07

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" Yes, you are right of course Shrub has done more than any other president to restrict and curtail our freedoms. Its odd isn't it that the people who rail most about "defending freedom" are the ones who start calling people traitors and un-american when they actually start to act like free thinking citizens. But rather than just become a cynic and give up (which is exactly what Cheney and co. want) I prefer to emphasize how great our country really is and do what I can to win back the freedoms they are trying to take away. posted 04/15/2008 at 22:38:13

No they don't. The US is fairly unique in having Freedom of Speech enshrined as a major right in the constitution. Many other democracies do not. That is why it is so much easier to sue someone for libel in the UK and why France,Germany, and Canada (among others) have what I consider to be inane laws like this that let someone be prosecuted just for saying something that is offensive to a particular racial group. I think what Bardot said was stupid but its even worse to prosecute her for it. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:49:22

How is evolution a "religion"? For that to be true there would have to be some evidence showing that evolution is incorrect in some way that is being ignored by scientists. If you look at the creationist "literature" you will find no such evidence. You will find things like "ireducible complexity". For example creationists claim that the eye can't be explained by evolution because random mutation could never produce a fully functioning eye and there are no intermediate steps between no eye and a fully functional eye. In reality there are many small steps between no eye and a fully functional eye, many of which can still be found in nature. E.g., a clump of cells that just detects light. The other argument is the "gap" argument. The fact that there are so many "gaps" in the fossil record where we can't see intermediate stages. In reality, given how difficult it is to create a fossil its amazing that we have the fossil record that we have. This is the other general technique of creationists. Find some particular part of a theory that we don't completely understand and say "ah ha! we don't know how this works so it was God who intervened" Unfortunately claiming divine intervention is not science. Science will always be messy and be evolving. If there WERE some legitimate critique of evolution that could stand up to scientific rigor you would find ambitious PhD students grabbing it and running with it. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:13:36

I don't understand why so many people on the left worship Wesley Clark as some kind of anti-war general. If you look back at the record he was cheer leading for the Iraq war as much as any neocon when it all went down.

After the fall of Baghdad he wrote "Liberation is at hand. Liberation, the powerful bomb that justifies painful sacrifices, erases lingering doubts and reinforces bold actions." He also wrote that George W. Bush and prime minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt".

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/18/robert_fisk_on_wesley_clark_iraq

Obama shouldn't muddy his anti-war credentials by taking Clark as his VP. There are far better choices who have strong military and anti-Iraq credentials such as Jim Webb. posted 04/15/2008 at 01:12:44

When I read this article I expected to come down on the side of the physicists promoting the collider. I have an amateur interest in string theory and I've heard about this before and have been looking forward to their results. However, I found the reply by the main guy leading the effort to be completely condescending. The stuff about shaving blowing up the earth was just disingenuous nonsense. There is a very real empirical question here: can a micro-black hole that could be created by this machine start swallowing other matter and grow into a macro-black hole that could destroy the earth? The defenders say no but some critics who are physicists say its never happened and we don't know for sure and we sure don't want to find out the hard way. If there is even a one in a thousand chance the critics are right I think people would agree its not worth the risk. posted 04/13/2008 at 18:09:10

I am an Obama supporter but I think its ridiculous to make a big deal about the fact that the Clintons made some money. It is so hypocritical. Compared to the money of the Bush family, Romney, even Edwards, the Clintons are pretty small time. What does bother me though is the way they handle it. Rather than addressing the issue head on, they delay and obfuscate and end up making it look worse than it really is. posted 04/05/2008 at 19:03:14

"Is it crazy to do that with a 5,000 year old book of cobbled-together stories and poems? Yes. But, is it any less crazy to believe..., that anti-depressants actually work ..." There is a huge difference between the two types of belief. Belief in anti-depressants is or at least should be based on the scientific method (lets factor out things like the greed of big pharma for now). We have models that describe how neurotransmitters work and how they effect our emotions. We use that model to create drugs that we test in clinical trials and by monitoring how they work when prescribed. As the models evolve and as we collect data we create new drugs. That is why the anti-depressants today are almost indistinguishable from what was used twenty years ago. Belief in the bible is based on faith -- believing because of tradition and because it is convenient. If you had been raised in an Muslim family you would believe in Islam rather than Christianity. If you were raised in an Asian family you would probably believe in Buddha. There is no argument or debate possible with such belief. You can use it (as it often is and as you and your colleagues seem to be doing) to justify very good things or you can use it to justify the most awful atrocities such as 9/11 or the Inquisition. posted 04/02/2008 at 14:07:36

I was really skeptical of the main idea when I started but you make a good case for it. If that is her strategy though, I think she is, as usual, shooting herself in the foot. At the start of this campaign I had pretty positive feelings about Senator Clinton. I knew she represented the right wing of the democratic party but still would have been happy to have her after 8 years of Chimpy and as an alternative to Granpda Bomb Bomb. If Clinton won the nomination I had every intention to contribute and volunteer for her campaign for president. Now, not only will I not do that but if she wins (i.e. steals) the nomination I will be tempted to sit out (although I won't). I've heard and read lots and lots of people who feel the same way. I would bet that if the primaries were redone today, she would loose many of the states that she won. I don't think she will ever be taken seriously as a presidential contender after this election. posted 03/23/2008 at 12:02:56

Wow, what wit. You forgot "I know you are but what am I?" posted 03/23/2008 at 14:02:49

I don't see the difference. Either you are following the will of the people or not. I'm an Obama supporter but I think Richardson and Kennedey should still vote as their consituents did -- providing that they can get the majority of other super delegates to commit to doing so as well. posted 03/23/2008 at 14:00:24

" I think the Judas analogy is apt; trading something morally dear for something crass and self- serving." Just how is Hillary Clinton "morally dear"? Has she ever taken a stand that was politically risky because she believed in some principle other than getting elected? posted 03/23/2008 at 13:58:01

"In the interview Friday, Richardson also said he called Hillary Clinton Thursday to inform her of his decision to back Obama, a conversation he described as "painful."

Anyone have contacts at NSA? Would love to hear a copy of that conversation! posted 03/22/2008 at 12:50:36

"Thats's because those GED brains over at the NYPD think they're an extension of the military and walk around dressing up and playing war. "

I don't know anything about what is currently going on between NYPD and the FBI beyond what was in this article. This description sounds quite believable and consistent with that. However, in the past (again documented by people like Lance and Wright) one of the main problems that made cooperation difficult is that the FBI tends to act like total A-holes who take control of cases and refuse to share information or credit for arrests and prosecutions. That is a clear pattern for the FBI that goes all the way back to J Edgar and how his G-men would hog credit for high profile arrests. In my experience when there is a broken relationship between two overlapping organizations like this both sides usually share some blame.

"And the reality is that there was nothing no matter how much information or power they had on 9/11 that the NYPD could have done to stop the terrorist attacks. They were just as helpless and died like many of the brave civilians that day."

First of all let me make it clear I never meant to impugn the bravery of the NYPD before or after 9/11 or in any way diminish their sacrifice. However, I think your statement is too strong. First of all it certainly is logically possible that the cells hatching the plot could have been discovered. This was a major undertaking and in the past we have seen much smaller plots that were discovered and disrupted before they came to fruition. My opinion is that since we haven't yet had an honest accounting of what happened and why on 9/11 we don't know enough to say if it might have been preventable. For example, the FBI has a "wanted" web page for Osama Bin Laden but they do not have sponsoring 9/11 as one of the crimes they would try him for. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm This isn't just an oversight. in a speech at the Commonwealth Club on April 19, 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller said:" In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot."

After Pearl Harbor FDR had an immediate investigation and sacked the army general responsible for the USAF at the port and the Admiral responsible for the port defenses. We need a similar kind of investigation that determines what happened, who sponsored it, and why so many leads were never followed up in order to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again. posted 03/22/2008 at 11:23:00

This is amazing. One of the most significant blunders that enabled 9/11 to happen was the turf war between NYPD and the FBI -- virtually identical to what was described in this article. Due to such turf wars terrorists who could easily have been thrown in jail and/or deported went free. Of course this was never reported by the white-wash 9/11 commission but it is one of the most obvious conclusions from researchers such as Lawrence Wright (The Looming Tower) and Peter Lance (Triple Cross). The next time someone says "there is no point looking backward and playing the blame game" think about this. Since we haven't had an honest accounting of what really happened on 9/11 -- who messed up and why -- we are still committing the same mistakes. posted 03/22/2008 at 10:42:36

Why is it that virtually every poll shows Obama ahead of Clinton and Obama beating McCain by a wider margin than Clinton? That wasn't true for a brief time right after the Wright scandal but its swung back again: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/gallup_obama_retakes_lead_over.php

You are right there are unfortunately a lot of racist people in this country still and Obama won't get their votes. However, 99% of those people are also rabid Clinton haters who would be unlikely to vote for any democrat and certainly not for Senator Clinton.

How was the voting in Florida and Michigan legitimate? Before those primaries every major democrat running for president agreed that they would follow the directives of the DNC and not campaign or expect to count the votes in both states. Hillary Clinton is even recorded on video saying that! Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in one state.

BTW, how exactly is Howard Dean an idiot? His 50 state strategy flew in the face of conventional wisdom from DNC leaders like the Clintons. Due to that strategy the democrats achieved unexpected victories in 2006 and won back both the house and senate, something few people thought was possible. If Dean is an idiot we need more idiots IMHO. posted 03/23/2008 at 14:53:12

Probably MTV generation. Doesn't realize that music can actually exist without pictures. That would explain his lack of taste. posted 03/23/2008 at 12:08:09

I'm a man and an Obama supporter but I think its wrong to start slandering feminism just because Clinton uses it in an unseemly way. "Bitch" is like the N word. If a black man uses it to refer to himself its OK but it is still not cool for a white person to call a black person. posted 03/23/2008 at 11:50:55

Completely agree. I'm an Obama supporter but i think its counterproductive for us to name call or slander. posted 03/23/2008 at 11:33:50

Reference? Link? posted 03/23/2008 at 11:24:54

Well, I'm a lot, lot, lot older than Casey. I've been around for over half a century and I've voted (for a democrat) ever since I was old enough. For the first time in my life in the California primary I voted for someone that I wanted to not for the lesser of two evils. I'm not impressed by simplistic messages but I am impressed that for the first time since I have been old enough to vote I see a candidate that behaves with integrity and tries to appeal to our better natures not to scare us or lie to us.

Way to go Casey that was awesome. posted 03/21/2008 at 21:05:04

Mort, where do you see the phrase "deluded idiots" in Mr. Harris' article? You see that is a difference between most religious people and most atheists/agnostics (aka brights). Brights are looking for the truth. We welcome discussion and when someone challenges our beliefs we don't view it as an attack, we treat it as an opportunity to debate and possibly learn. We also aren't judgemental. We realize that people can have positions we consider wrong and still be intelligent and capable. I saw nothing in this post that was ridiculing or condemning. This was a well reasoned discussion on the hypocrisy and fallacies of religion in our current political system. However, rather than reply to his arguments you indulge in name calling and villification. BTW, I'm a big Obama supporter as well.

posted 03/23/2008 at 15:55:51

"I am a devoted Brzezinski fan" Are you also a big fan of other Neocons such as Wolfewitz, Feith, and Kristol? Don't let his democratic credentials fool you. Brzezinski literally wrote the book on Neocon philospy. His book "The Grand Chessboard" is the one most cited by both the right and left as the bible for the "Project for the New American Century". I hope that Obama doesn't select him to be a part of his team. That would be a major shift from thinkers such as Sarah Power to more of the same Bush ideas.

I do agree with his critique of Senator Clinton however. The idea that experience as a first lady qualifies one to be president is foolish. Only a media so saturated with nonsense about prostitutes and preachers could be gullible enough to even consider it. posted 03/21/2008 at 16:31:53

Neaguy, do you think that someone who was anti-nuke, or anti-death penalty or especially not sufficiently anti-Chavez would have any chance at all to be elected president in 2008? I agree with all your positions and I myself am so far to the left on most issues that its not even on the spectrum of what can be talked about in the MSM. But I also whole heartedly endorse Obama. I don't think he's the reincarnation of JFK (nor in fact that JFK was all that great) but I do think he represents a real alternative to both Clinton and McCain. He was against the war from the very beginning. More importantly he has shown by the way he dealt with the Wright nonsense and other issues that he actually has some principles that mean something to him. The problem I have with the left in this country is that so many of them seem more concerned with winning debating points than winning elections. Nader can go on and on about all the things that are wrong with Clinton and Obama but I have never heard him give a practical alternative as to how to elect someone better. I would think that 7 years of Bush instead of Gore would have made everyone on the left realize that we need to play real politik and not vote based solely on our ideals but it seems that's not the case. posted 03/23/2008 at 18:12:46

I'm reposting this. I think the initial one got lost in the Internets. Apologies if if shows up twice:

I'm sorry I don't follow your point. Those links show that people who are bi-polar often have hypersexuality, sex addiction, whatever. I never meant to imply otherwise. If you will look at my initial post you will see that the patient I referred to as a classic bi-polar was flirting with everyone. I would definitely describe her as hypersexual. When she was manic she radiated sexuality. She was witty, charming, energetic, and flirtatious. When she was depressed just the opposite. However, just because people that are bi-polar are hypersexual does not mean that all people who are hypersexual are bi-polar.

My point is that people pretend to be able to diagnose Governor Spitzer based on the fact that he likes to have casual sex with beautiful young women. Even if I were Dr. Freud I think I would need to have a little more data than that. By that standard 90% of the men I know are bi-polar. I don't think we even know enough about Spitzer to assume he was hypersexual. True he spent a lot of money on prostitutes but he had lots and lots of money. For him it probably was petty cash. My understanding is he spent a total of $80K at apx. $8K a pop over ten years. That averages out to once a year. That doesn't seem very hyper to me. And as I said even assuming there is lots more sex we don't know about just because he likes lots of sex doesn't mean he is bi-polar.

posted 03/21/2008 at 21:35:14

I agree. But (for example) fatigue is a symptom of Multiple Sclerosis but it would be silly to say that someone who was tired all the time had MS. However, even though few people try to be arm chair neurologists lots of people like to play arm chair shrink. BTW, the reason that I care is that this whole thing is just such a stupid distraction. Seeing hookers is a minor crime and hardly something that should disqualify you from being governor. Especially someone who was one of the very, very few public servants who had the integrity and intelligence to take on corporate America like Spitzer. This whole thing is yet one more distraction that prevents us from talking about American soldiers and Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, the fact that our economy is in a tailspin, and that we are approaching an environmental catastrophe. posted 03/21/2008 at 21:33:36

I'm sorry I don't follow your point. Those links show that people who are bi-polar often have hypersexuality, sex addiction, whatever. I never meant to imply otherwise. If you will look at my initial post you will see that the patient I referred to as a classic bi-polar was flirting with everyone. I would definitely describe her as hypersexual. When she was manic she radiated sexuality. She was witty, charming, energetic, and flirtatious. When she was depressed just the opposite. However, just because people that are bi-polar are hypersexual does not mean that all people who are hypersexual are bi-polar.

My point is that people think they can diagnose Governor Spitzer based on the fact that he likes to have casual sex with beautiful young women. Even if I were Dr. Freud I think I would need to have a little more data than that. I don't think we even know enough about Spitzer to assume he was hypersexual. True he spent a lot of money on prostitutes but he had lots and lots of money. For him it probably was petty cash. My understanding is he spent a total of $80K at apx. $8K a pop over ten years. That averages out to once a year. That doesn't seem very hyper to me. And as I said even assuming there is lots more sex we don't know about just because he likes lots of sex doesn't mean he is bi-polar. posted 03/21/2008 at 20:44:55

Yes!!!!!!!! Could not agree more. And as oneyeyodin says below stop focusing on titilating issues and start addressing the real problems. posted 03/21/2008 at 12:32:51

Why is it that when things like this happen everyone becomes an amateur psychiatrist? What do you mean by "bi-polar"? What it means is what used to be called "manic depresive" Having periods of extreme elation followed by extreme depression. There is nothing about Spitzer that suggests that. I used to work in a psych hospital and I saw real examples of this and it is a true illness. When you see someone who actually has it there is no mistaking it. One day they are bouncing off the walls, ecstatic, flirting and socializing with everyone the next they are crying, miserable, and can't get out of bed. Unfortunately, in our over medicated over analyzed society everyone who feels a bit sad suddenly thinks they are bi-polar and runs to the doc for the prozac and anyone who get caught doing something stupid runs to the clinic with some kind of addiction. posted 03/21/2008 at 12:30:37

I completely agree. I also think its insane that he had to loose his job over this. The priorities in this country are so deranged. posted 03/21/2008 at 12:22:22

If that is true (which I sincerely doubt) the psychiatrist who shared that confidential information should at a minimum loose his/her job and also face possible criminal charges. posted 03/21/2008 at 12:20:37

I agree with you that it is totally lame and sexist to blame the wife. But I hate to tell you just about all men have an insatiable hunger for sex. If only America wasn't such a puritan country we could just acknowledge that and actually focus on things like the war and the economy. posted 03/21/2008 at 12:18:22

Dream on. As John Dean pointed out the Bush administration crimes that we have known about already are far worse than Watergate. Why a special prosecutor was never appointed (yes I know the law expired but there was no law in place when they created one for tricky dick) I'll never be able to understand. posted 03/20/2008 at 20:52:32

Nothingsnew: I saw the original interview excerpted from Readers Digest and he was just quoting verbatim. Are you saying that the Readers Digest people mis-quoted? If you have some evidence (e.g. you seem to imply that the audio of the actual interview is available) why don't you include a link to back it up? posted 03/23/2008 at 12:15:49

Sorry, typo that should have read "hard to infiltrate Al Queda" not "9/11" posted 03/20/2008 at 20:14:19

If its so hard to infliltrate 9/11, why was John Walker Lindh -- a mixed up white boy from up scale Marin county north of San Francisco -- able to just walk on in and enlist? The book "Road to 9/11" by Peter Dale Scott describes the real reason the CIA "can't" get people inside Al Queda. They aren't really trying. Scott interviews several people who were in the agency and they all give more or less the same story. The CIA has grown fat and lazy. The agents are all tied to embassies and spend most of their time going to coctail parties making "contacts" and waiting to be approached. That worked fairly well for the cold war since we had embassies in the USSR but not so much when the enemy is in caves in Afghanastan and Pakistan. posted 03/20/2008 at 20:13:06