Tom Cruise is the medical expert

According to Tom Cruise he's a medical expert who should be considered a thought leader in Neurobiology, Pharmacology, Drug Chemistry (he's a bit of a history buff to boot). At least that's the gist of what he told Matt Lauer this morning when he insisted Lauer didn't know what he was talking about after being questioned for criticizing Brooke Shields' use of anti-depressants to treat post-partum depression.

"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do," Cruise said.

The interview became more heated when Lauer, who said he knew people who had been helped by the attention-deficit disorder drug Ritalin, asked Cruise about the effects of the drug.

"Matt, Matt, you don't even -- you're glib," Cruise responded. "You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, OK. That's what I've done."

I, for one, would love to see Dr. Cruise's board scores and medical license. Cruise, of course, has a right to refuse any sort of medical or psychological treatment he wants (interestingly, Scientology proscribes psychological counseling despite the fact it is a form of psychotherapy). He has a right to say his religion forbids use of psychotropic medications and/or any that have any CNS effects. If he, on behalf of Scientology (Hubbard wrote SciFi books and called his religion Scientology, he was not a scientist) or as a private citizen, wants to complain that we, as Americans, tend to be to quick to rely on pharmacological intervention for ourselves and our children and/or that parents, teachers, schools & doctors are quick to label a kid as having ADHD - more power to him (I would actually agree on those points). But for him to verbally attack people for using medications legitimately prescribed to treat an organic medical condition, discourage them from following physicians orders (other than to advise to seek a second opinion) and/or to actively engage himself in treatment/removal of treatment by claiming expertise is irresponsible at best. We all know Cruise can memorize and regurgitate, these are core skills he needs and utilizes as an actor, but reading some articles and to make blanket statements about all "psychotropic" medications applied across all situations is a sign of Cruise's distinct lack of analytical skills. If so much as one patient discontinues use of a needed medication and/or therapy to treat mental illness due to Cruise's assertions he is an expert who "knows" all these medications and everything to do with psychiatry is wrong, Cruise should be held morally and criminally responsible for any decompensation (including any indirect injury to others secondary to the decompensation). This is no longer a "has Cruise gone off his rocker" question in response to his mercurial behavior of late, this is a matter of Cruise's megalomaniacal irresponsibility.


Tags: Quackery; medicine; tom cruise

Sphere: Related Content

Warning signs of Institutionalized Child Abuse

Pam posted a bit more on the state of Tennessee's investigation of "Love In Action" and the report that spurred the investigation. House Blend reader and licensed therapist Paul Chirumbolo was in contact with WMC-TV in Memphis and filed the report of suspected child abuse against the facility. Among the information he provided was some insight into warning signs of institutionalized child abuse with comments regarding their implementation at LIA/Refuge (Red Font is info provided by Paul/Pam; blue indicates my additions from the Refuge/LIA rules that have been posted):

The facility is not licensed. Confirmed

Verbal and/or written communication between the child and his parents, siblings, grandparents, etc. is prohibited, restricted, or monitored on any level.


"Refuge clients will not be allowed to use personally owned computers during the program, whether on campus or at home/in temporary lodging. Computer stations are normally available on campus when clients need to type something."

"Clients must gain permission through C.O.C. to make or receive phone calls from friends and family members outside the program."



The facility requires that the parents and/or child sign a form releasing the program of liability in the event of injury to the child. Unknown


The program requests/demands/recommends that they have legal custody of children. Unknown


The program requires that children live in foster or "host" homes instead of allowing them to reside with their parents. Unknown


The child or parent or forbidden from discussing the daily happenings at the facility. Often this policy is called "confidentiality."

Under Home/Lodging Rules: "No discussing therapeutic issues at home. Keep conversations positive."

The child is denied access to a telephone.


Under Home/Lodging Rules:
"Clients must gain permission through C.O.C. to make or receive phone calls from friends and family members outside the program.

No cell phones, beepers, computers, or e-mail/internet access at. Exceptions by C.O.C. approval only."



Phone calls between children and parents are monitored.


The program uses confrontational therapy.


Parents must fulfill requirements of the facility before being permitted to visit their own children. Unknown


The facility is located outside the jurisdiction of the United States.


Children are restrained or otherwise physically prevented from leaving the facility. Unknown


The staff includes former students/clients of the facility. Reported by past detainees.


Staff members claim that self-injury or cutting/carving on ones body is normal behavior for a child in treatment.


Parents are not allowed to remain with their child during the entire intake/entry process. Unknown


The program inflicts physical punishments on children such as exercising for extended periods of time, bizarre cleaning rituals (ie scrubbing floors with a toothbrush) or food restrictions. Unknown


The program uses humiliation to "break them down." Love In Action calls them shaming sessions, as reported by former detainees.


The program forces children to remain in solitary confinement/isolation/time-out for an unspecified amount of time.For a start, for the first 3 days in detention.


"Safekeeping Rules
1. All new Refuge clients will be placed into Safekeeping for the initial two to three days of their program. A client on safekeeping may not communicate verbally, or by using hand gestures or eye contact, with any other clients, staff members, or his/her parents or guardians. In case of a practical need, Safekeeping clients may write down their question or request and show it to another client, staff member, or their parent or guardian. Writing may only be used when absolutely necessary. Parents and guardians must enforce their child's safekeeping status at home or in their temporary lodging.

2. Refuge clients may C.O.C. to be removed from Safekeeping status. Safekeeping clients will be removed from Safekeeping at their staffworker's discretion.

3. Any client may be placed into Safekeeping at any time, at a staffworker's discretion.

4. Safekeeping clients are permitted to say"hello" and to communicate enough information to be courteous in public interaction (mostly in the clients' church setting).

5. Safekeeping clients are required to spend a minimum of two hours (in one sitting) a day alone in their room (note: by "alone" it is understood that parents or guardians can be in the room but are not to interact or disrupt the alone time of the safekeeping client). During the alone time Safekeeping clients may work on their treatment plans, read program materials or the Bible, pray, or work on other assignments from their staffworkers.

6. In the evenings, all Refuge Safekeeping clients must remain at home or at their temporary lodging with their parent or guardian (i.e. no going out to eat, to the store, etc. during Safekeeping.)

7. Non-Safekeeping clients are responsible to protect and uphold the Safekeeping parameters of the Safekeeping clients."

Home/Lodging Rules

"Total silence time at home begins at 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. Refuge clients may use this time for resting, but are encouraged to make a habit of using it for a nightly quiet time with God.

Lights-out time will begin each night at 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday."

The facility considers homosexuality to be a behavioral problem. Confirmed


The facility claims to be able to "treat" homosexuality. Confirmed

Reading materials are prohibited or severely limited.

Refuge clients may only read materials approved by staff.

No television viewing, going to movies, or reading/watching/listening to secular media of any kind, anywhere within the client's and the parent's/guardian's control. This includes listening to classical or instrumental music that is not expressly Christian (Beethoven, Bach, etc. are not considered Christian). The only exception to the media policy is the weekly movie.

Refuge clients may watch one video/DVD per week that has been approved by staff via C.O.C. Movies submitted for approval must be rated G or PG. The parents/guardians are responsible for securing the video/DVD.



The facility does not have a clearly visible sign outside the building or descriptions of their location are vague.


The facility claims to modify behavior, yet has no licensed therapists on staff.


A licensed doctor or registered nurse is not present at any time during normal operating hours. Unknown


Current clients/students participate in the intake/entry process. Unknown


Staff members offer to help parents obtain a court order forcing the child into, or keeping the child in, the facility. Unknown


Children are observed while bathing, dressing, or using the toilet on any level of the program.


The facility claims to treat drug abuse, but does not conduct a drug screen prior to entry.


The facility does not allow children to follow their religion of choice.

"under Therapeutic & Staff issues: Refuge clients and their parents/guardians are required to attend Love in Action¹s host church, Germantown Baptist Church, on Sunday mornings. More information about GBC can be found online at www.gbconline.net.

Parents and guardians are expected to attend the Friends and Family support group on Thursday nights from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., held at the Love in Action campus. Refuge clients will be supervised during this time by a Love in Action staff member.



Staff members must "approve" family members, siblings, friends, or employment. Suggested in the Love In Action protocols


Children are not afforded an education in accordance with state requirements.

under "Therapeutic & Staff issues: "No continuing education while in the program. Home-school Refuge clients may be allowed to continue their studies during the program, pending approval by LIA staff




Medication is recommended, prescribed, approved, or dispensed by anyone other than a medical doctor (MD). Unknown


Children are denied medications that have been prescribed by an MD. Unknown


Staff members, admissions personnel, referrers, etc. make statements indicating that "your child will die without" the program. Love In Action Director has made statements condoning suicide if the "gay to straight" conversion is unsuccessful


Children escort/supervise other children.

"While on the LIA campus, Refuge clients must be in phase at all times, whether indoors or out of doors. A client is "in phase" when he or she is with two or more other clients (whether Refuge or residential,) one of whom must have been in the program for at least eight weeks. Exceptions to phase rules will be granted by C.O.C. request only."



Children have to "earn" the "right" to speak during group/therapy sessions.


Children are denied outside activities on any level/phase.


Staff members must approve the withdrawal of children from the facility. Unknown


The facility expects total and unquestioned support of parents. Suggested


Children on any level/phase are forbidden to speak to other children in the facility

Then, of course, there are the Parental Rules (which are not to be given to the "client")

1. No discussing therapeutic issues at home. Keep conversations positive.

2. Clients are to be picked up from the LIA office no later than 5:00pm each weekday.

3. Respect all Love In Action and Refuge rules. If you do not understand them, support the program in front of client at all times and gain clarification from LIA staff. Do not sabotage or defocus your client.

4. Don't allow client to split your family. Unite to present stability and unity.

5. Your client is not allowed to talk to anyone outside of your home including friends or family. Do not tell client who has called for them or who is asking about them. Keep the thoughts of the client focused on his/her treatment.

6. The family needs interactive time together. It is very important that togetherness is the priority during this time. The client does not need extended time alone or with only one family member. The only exception is for Refuge clients who are from out-of-town and staying with a significant guardian while here.

7. Family dinner is encouraged to occur at least four times weekly.

8. The client is expected to cook dinner at least one time weekly.

9. The client is expected to complete a weekly cleaning regimen to your satisfaction.

10. Parents/guardians are asked to make themselves available for any special meetings deemed necessary for the successful treatment of their loved ones.

11. If there is an "Open Meeting" during Refuge Program, parents/guardians are asked to attend to enhance their involvement with Refuge. Open meetings are held the first Tuesday of each month at 7:30pm at Kirby Woods Baptist Church (on the corner of Poplar Ave. and Massey; entrance is located at the ground floor on the east side of building entrance).

Consequences for Rule Violation:

1. Constructive criticism from the group.
2. Ten to thirty-page written paper on rule violation.
3. Program dismissal. This does not need to be addressed with the client (The client may sabotage his/her own program due to purposeful dismissal consequences).
4. Isolation from the group.

Hopefully Zach will come through this ordeal relatively unscathed. The only "reparative" therapy that was necessary for Zach prior to his admission to this "program" (and any other person in a similar position) is the reparation of the family relationship when both he and his family learn to love and accept him for the person that he is.

Tags: gay; christian; evangelical ; cult; love in action; reparative therapy

Sphere: Related Content

Distort, Deny & Lie: another Republican side-show

The King of denial, Ken Mehlman, has the vapors

"It's outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin's libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove's statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments."

I (not-so) respectfully disagree with Mehlman's statement, but then, what else is new? First off, Durbin (like most of the Democratic leaders) rolled over and apologized. Secondly, the fact that Durbin's comment on June 14 did not, as Bill Frist alludes, slander our military or ground troops in general of being war criminals a la Jane Fonda. What Durbin actually said was [emphasis added]:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings"

NOT, as Republican leadership would have you believe:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you thatit was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings"

Durbin's statement was made after reading from an FBI agent's observations of activities at Gitmo and how [some] prisoners were treated. Upon review of FBI emails documented treatment of prisoners and statements by FBI agents, Army Col. Patrick Lang, who was head of human intelligence gathering at the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, voiced his shame at the actions (that he considers torture), shall he now be accused of slander for accusing the US of breaking the law and committing crimes or carted away for treason for undermining the war and our troops?

"I think that a lot of this behavior which has been allowed is so far outside the pale, that I think that it would have to be considered to be something not allowed in international law or U.S. military law

[snip]

If we do things like this, if we beat people and we neglect them and we try to use their religion against them, however stupidly, I mean, in fact, we're debasing ourselves to the point in fact in which we're losing something, that we should be trying to protect in this war,

[snip]

As a professional soldier, and someone who dedicated his life to the service of the United States, in fact, to think that United States would stoop to such tactics as this, I find to be a disgraceful thing."

While Durbin may have overstated the severity of torture (I can't seem to find the FBI statement from which he read) by likening what the FBI agent described to more heinous examples, he did not libel our miltary (let alone do so en masse). Those who partake in acts of torture, even ones that don't permanently maim or kill someone, show no concern for human beings and this was a hallmark of the Nazi/Stalin/Pol Pot regimes (because they disregard that their victims not only are human beings, but that they just may be human beings who are not be guilty of what they've been accused of; according to Sgt Erik Saar, about "a few dozen" out of 600 detainees at Gitmo were real terrorists).

Republican leadership, whose expertise in the "do as I say, not as I do" is rivalled by none, have not only made their own egregious errors in speech but actually have the brass neuticals (the fundies are holding the real testes in the palms of their hand so they can give a good squeeze any time any anti-theocracy action is taken) to claim that if/when Dem leadership find their nuts to protest Rep statements/actions it's just partisan politics but that they, the good moral Republican party, only criticize outrageous acts and slanderous statements that endanger US citizens and the country itself (it just so happens their criticism appears partisan, it is not - they are, of course, above partisanship).

For the White House (via Scott McClellan) to accuse Democrats of partisanship in complaint about Karl Rove's allegation that liberals just wanted to play nice with terrorists while conservatives were actually willing to do something about terrorism is the pinnacle of partishanship. But then, if you really read Rove's initial statement, he actually admitted that the conservatives just prepared to go to war indiscriminately, and followed up on HardBall by reminding us the administration still has its head in the sand (as it did when it "planned" this war) issuing what Shake's points out was clearly an attempt at a late production of a prequel [emphasis added]:

GREGORY: As you well know, critics of this war have seized on what’s being called now the Downing Street Memo, based on meetings that Britain’s Chief of Intelligence had with American officials about the war. One issue that comes up in that memo and subsequent memos is British concerns about the fact that the White House in their view wasn’t adequately thinking about what happens after the regime falls.

ROVE: I'm glad you brought that up because I want to put that in context. First of all that is the British — a Brit making a comment about what he perceived to be U.S. policy. But remember the time frame, it is months and months and months before the balloon goes up in Iraq. And in those intervening months there was plenty of time planning for post-war efforts, vast amounts of planning. You never know exactly how a war is going to plan out. Napoleon once said, 'vast numbers of refugees enormous problems with food aid'- did not happen. Vast uprising- didn't happen. That we would see a vast uprising by hundreds of thousands of Iraqis- didn’t happen. War is ugly, but a lot went very well with this effort and in part it was because the United States government and our coalition partners used the months to plan for any eventuality.

GREGORY: But if you're talking about the number of troops necessary, the level of American casualties, the force and intensity of the insurgency…did the president mislead the American people about the cost of the war or was he just simply surprised by what happened?

ROVE: I would go back to the president’s statements over the last several years and I would defy you to find one speech which he talked about Iraq where he doesn’t say there would be difficult times ahead, that we had a long road to hope that a great deal of sacrifice was going to be called for by both the American people and by the Iraqis to achieve this goal. Look, we do not underestimate the ferocity and the anger and the viciousness of the people that we face. We are in a war. Some people may treat it as a law enforcement matter and be worried about indictments from the U.S. attorney from the southern district of New York. But we recognize this administration and the American people we are in a war and the only way you have a successful outcome in the war is to aim for a complete and total victory, which is exactly what we’re doing.

As an American citizen, I am tired of the lies, distortions and outrageous deflection. Politics as usual does not work when the world is being flooded with some pretty damning and substantiated evidence against our leadership and my outrage, Mr. Mehlman, is very real.

Our supposedly free media should be reporting on the issues and focusing on the real story (the war effort; how/when/why we invaded Iraq, & whether any US and/or international laws were broken; impeachable offenses; etc.) not hissy fits. It's supposed to be news and journalism, not infotainment. Leave the cat fights to E! so the "journalists" can report on government, world events and items that shouldn't be boiled down to idiocy for the sake of ratings.

Tags: Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; Patriotism; Honor; BBA; Rove; hypocrisy; conservatism; Durbin

Sphere: Related Content

Love OUT of action?

I got home to a glorious email that included a story indicating that the state of Tennessee has begun an investigation of child abuse at "Love In Action", the unlicensed Memphis facility that advertises a program called Refuge in which boasts "reparative therapy" to exorcise gay teens of their homosexual demons. Since I didn't want to post anything without a link, I headed over to see what Terrence had uncovered and if there'd been any updates. Even though it's extremely difficult to prove emotional abuse, the fact that the state has decided #1 to look into this particular issue (especially as Zach's treatment has been extended) and #2 look into why an unlicensed facility is advertising any sort of psychiatric/psychological therapy is a major breakthrough. I agree with Terence wholeheartedly when he says

"If you ask me, subjecting a kid to the kind of psychological warfare and identity assault that this program sounds like ought to be considered child abuse."

Any organization or program that preys on the vulnerability and feelings of disenfranchisement of a child in an attempt to force them to reject themselves in favor of someone else's idea of who and what they should be is one that shows little regard for that child's emotional wellbeing. But then again, what do you expect by an organization that shows nothing but contempt for the truth?



Tags: gay; christian; evangelical ; cult; love in action; reparative therapy

Sphere: Related Content

You say partisan attack, I say philosphical discussion

It appears as though Dick Durbin's comments can be chalked up to

"talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

at least that's how Scott McClellan explained Karl Rove's speech to the New York state Conservative Party yesterday in which Rove stated:

"liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives, saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

As we know from DSM and the flood of documentation around the plan for war, the conservatives were so keen to start a war in response to 9/11 they invented a case for one against those they knew weren't responsible for 9/11 and so prepared, they started the war before Congress authorized it.



Tags: Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; Patriotism; Honor; BBA; Rove; hypocrisy;conservatism

Sphere: Related Content

All ownership rests with the government

The Supreme Court just ruled that local governments can, indeed, seize private property without cause and against the will of the lawful owners for the purposes of private economic development. As noted by Albert Burns a little over 3 years ago, state and local agencies to having been working with private business and the American Planning Association to ensure the government has eminent domain over any property for any reason at any time. This is, as Burns, states was

a mechanism for the federalization of all land control in the United States. It is a formula for "top-down" planning and control of all land and businesses with local communities, and owners, losing virtually any input into the process.

The plan seems to have worked in the favor of the government, the APA and real-estate development firms. As Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissent:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

In what seems to be a role reversal on the court, she was joined in dissent by Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas.

Just remember, you may pay for house and property and assume all liability for what happens on it, but you most certainly do not control it - that is the government's domain and the Republican Party leadership has made it pretty clear they plan to exercise this right to it's fullest extent.

Tags: SCOTUS; property rights; politics

Sphere: Related Content

NY: where females can access medication when necessary

State Senators in Albany, NY passed legislation yesterday that would allow females to obtain access to emergency contraception without a doctor's visit or prescription, and without the need for minors to obtain parental consent.

"Today, science has triumphed over politics," said Kelli Conlin, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice New York. "The state Legislature granted the women of New York greater access to birth control and gave them a second chance to prevent unintended pregnancy."

The measure now moves on to Gov. George Pataki to be signed or vetoed. The legislation allows dispensation by any pharmacist, nurse or midwife under a blanket prescription (the end-user is not identified) from a physician. The sponsor of the proposal, Nicholas Spano indicated the reason he introduced the legislation was due to

"the frequent difficulties encountered in obtaining medical appointments at offices with limited hours, long waits or inconvenient locations."

The "Pro-life" movement is, as expected, apoplectic about the legislation climing the law will put women and children at risk.

Kathleen Gallagher of the New York State Catholic Conference said "We think it is going to undermine families. As a parent, it's really scary that 14-year-old kids can get these high doses of hormones virtually over the counter."

Maybe Gallagher and her comrades should have thought about this possibility before they started to actively interject their personal objections to contraception into the medical treatment of women and stop fighting comprehensive sex education programs that can help the "at risk" kids make better decisions about how to protect themselves a priori when they choose to take another risk despite being told sex is only for marriage.

Tags: health care; contraception; abortion; reproductive rights; fundamentalism; catholic

Sphere: Related Content

Faux'Reilly Redux

Just a couple more thoughts linking Lindsay's post yesterday (*sheesh* 2 trackbacks?!) to FP's entry this morning.

Bill O'Reilly [emphasis added]:

"And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less."

Recent Testimony in front of the House Armed Services Committee:

Two top Marine Corps officers acknowledged Tuesday that they waited two months to issue a contract for armor kits to protect the undersides of Humvees after promising to do so earlier this year. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. William Nyland, the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, and Brig. Gen. William Catto, the chief of Marine Corps Systems Command, attributed the delay to a "lack of leadership." They assured the committee that all Humvees and military trucks that the Marines used in Iraq would be adequately protected by December. Improvised explosive devices, as the military calls homemade bombs, have become the biggest killer of U.S. troops in Iraq this year

Rummy on the lack of appropriate armor back in December 2004:

Rumsfeld, questioned by soldiers in Kuwait on Wednesday who said they have had to pick through landfills for scrap metal to boost vehicle protection, said the Army was working as quickly at it could to get armored Humvees to the front. It is "a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said, adding that the Army was "breaking its neck." President Bush yesterday reiterated that "the concerns expressed are being addressed."

So tell me Billy-boy, who is it that's undermining our troops and endangering them and the rest of the country? Which of these fine folks should be carted away in chains and tried for treason and who among us is the real patriot showing support for our troops?

Tags: Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; Patriotism; Honor; BBA; O'Reilly; hypocrisy;conservatism

Sphere: Related Content

overblown bouts of overreaching

I don't know what CE Petro's babbling about, going on about how there's some sort of evidence of actual religious intolerance at the USAFA. Sure a Jewish cadet was asked how he felt about killing Jesus and that the Yale Divinity group, invited on campus to improve the issues after the reported sexual assault problems on campus, reported a few incidents of proselytizing

"The chaplain who was there in the midst of the sermon extorted his cadets that they needed to go back to their bunks and bear witness, to proselytize, to bring their bunk mates to become Christians and, if they didn't, and, in fact, that there would be consequences for them."

Sure the Air Force investigation indicates the USAFA may have "failed to accomodate the diverse religious needs of cadets and staff," but according to Air Force deputy chief of staff for personnel Lt. Gen. Roger Brady, it may be overstating the problem by calling it intolerance

"There is a lack of awareness on the part of some faculty and staff, and perhaps some senior cadets, as to what constitutes appropriate expressions of faith," said Brady.

Brady said he was unsure whether many of the incidents qualified as intolerance, but said "there's certainly insensitivity" at the institution.

"Yes, I think there were cases where people said some things perhaps from a lecturn that were overreaching, forgetting their position, that put cadets perhaps in an untenable position in terms of, 'Gee, am I going to pass Physics 101 if I don't agree with this guy?,"' he said.

Tags: religion; freedom of expression; freedom of expression; intolerance

Sphere: Related Content

Desecrating the flag endangers US citizens

On tonight's Abrams Report, Phil Gingrey (R-GA) claimed a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag was necessary because, due to terrorism, desecrating the flag poses a threat to American citizens with danger is on par with that posed by yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

"Well these are different times in which we live and because of terrorism and embolden either domestic or international terrorists in the Middle East or wherever they might be, I think burning the flag is akin today to standing up in a crowded theater and yelling fire when there is no fire. You put people at great risk when you do that and therefore your rights to freedom of speech in those circumstances should be abridged and that's what we are talking about..."

Talk about (not) keeping things in perspective.

Note: edited 23Jun05 to include link to transcript and direct quote.

Tags: symbolism; politics; constitution;Cable News; Dan Abrams

Sphere: Related Content

O'Reilly calls for arrest of Santorum & DeLay (indirectly, that is)

Lindsay posted this little tidbit from Bill O'Reilly in which the Republican pundit suggests having the FBI haul off the folks at Air America Radio as traitors for "undermining everything." According to O'Reilly dissent is fine but "undermining" is traitorous.

O'REILLY: And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

What, exactly, was Super Rick Santorum's intent when he likened Democrats to Hitler during the filibuster debates? It sounds like he was undermining the political process and endangering Democrats by "whipping up the American public against" them. More significantly are the statements of Tom DeLay, Super Rick (again), Lamar Smith, House Majority Dictator Bill Frist and braniac John Hostettler which were exceptionally egregious and potentially dangerous statements with the intent of "whipping up the American public against" Democrats, non-Christians and Judges who do not put conservative politics ahead of legal precedent (including not so veiled references to judges being appropriate targets for death threats). Based on O'Reilly's rationale, shouldn't these fine Republicans be carted away in chains as well?

Tags:o'reilly; frist; hypocrisy;Santorum; Hostettler;conservatism

Sphere: Related Content

The AMA takes a stand against pharmacist obstruction of clinical practice

The AMA has announced a plan to take on Pharmacist Refusals to fill legally prescribed medications based on the pharmacists personal religious philopsphy and "moral" objections. At its annual meeting on Monday, the organization voted to support legislative initiatives requiring pharmacists and pharmcies to fill legally valid prescriptions.

If the pharmacist or pharmacy has objections, they should provide an "immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference," according to the resolution passed Monday by the AMA's policymaking House of Delegates.

The AMA decided to through its support behind initiatives because physicians want to ensure their patients are able to obtain medication prescribed to them without interference and/or potentially detrimental interruption.

If a pharmacist has a moral objection, there should at least be a plan to get the drug as quickly as possible to the patient through other means, doctors have testified at their annual meeting this week at the Chicago Hilton and Towers.

"Our position is on behalf of the patient," said Dr. Peter Carmel, an AMA board member and neurosurgeon from New Jersey. "The AMA strongly believes patients have to have access to their medications. It's the obligation on behalf of the pharmacist ... to tell them where to go."

The AMA policy is similar to that developed the nation's largest pharmacy chain, Walgreen's, which has had it's own problems as a result of the completely misdirected "Pharmacist Conscience" Clause

"Pharmacists can remove themselves from filling prescriptions that they have moral objections to," Walgreens spokesman Michael Polzin said. "But we require them to either have another pharmacist at that store fill it, or, if another pharmacist is not on duty, to contact store management, and the store manager will make arrangements for that prescription to be filled at another pharmacy before the patient leaves the store."

The intent of Walgreens' policy is to make sure a patient doesn't leave the store wondering where the prescription can get filled, Polzin said.

"We have over 15,000 pharmacists working for us across the country, so we feel this policy balances respecting our pharmacists' beliefs with meeting our obligation to the patient," Polzin said. "A pharmacist should be able to step away from that situation, but we don't want them to step in the way."

Unfortunately, some pharmacists feel the need to interfere with the medical treatment of patients to prevent those patients from obtaining legitimate and legal medications because the Pharmacist personally (and erroneously) believes the medications induce abortions or is otherwise morally offended by the medication. Conservatives seem to support the notion that any action that prevents a Christian from impose his or her moral views on another being that does not, likewise, subscribe to those views is a violation of the right to freedom of religious expression. This "my rights are violated when I'm prevented from persecuting those who aren't adherents to my religion" stands in direct violation of the US Constitution (especially as only certain denominations of Christians are allowed to utilize this arugument).

In his assertions to this point on his show last night, Tucker Carlson proved that some people get paid way too much money for just blowing it out their ass by claiming the AMA had stepped over the line.

"This is so authoritarian and coercive, I don't even know what to say, Max, except this: If people have a religious objection to doing something, and it's their business—they're not working for the government, they're working for a private enterprise—you shouldn't be allowed to force them. You shouldn't force kosher butchers to sell pork or force, I don't know, Christian Science convenience store owners to sell Advil. It's wrong."

I've got news for Tucker: this isn't a requirement that all pharamcies carry and fill prescriptions for all medications (just that those that do stock the meds fill those prescriptions that are valid, transfer the prescription to one that does or return the prescription so it can be filled in a reasonable amount of time). Additionally, a Jehovah's witness working in the medical field could not refuse to provide a medically warranted blood transfusion on a patient who has not refused this treatment, let alone interfere in that transfusion should someone else deem to perform one.

A pharmacist is not trained (or licensed) to practice medicine and, as such, has no place interefering in valid and legal medical treatment. It is not the place of the pharmacist to demand to know the marital status of the patient or know the indication for which a medicine is prescibed (or to make assumptions about either of these), to do so not only violates the patient's right to privacy but also interferes in medical practice (which puts the pharmacist in a position in which s/he is illegally practicing medicine without a license). As I've said many times before, if a pharmacist finds use of any prescription medication that can be used as a contraceptive agent (or any other medication) so morally objectionable, that pharmacist should refrain from taking a job at any pharmacy that stocks that class of medication (there are Christian Pharmacies and/or the Pharmacist could start his/her own Pharmacy with a no contraception policy), but there is no rational reason to confer new rights to allow a group of people to impose their religious requirements on non-adherents with the inaccurate justification that failing to do so is a violation of that group's right religion freedom - it's a ludicrous act of intellectual dishonesty.

Hat tip to Pseudo-Adrienne

note: late edit to update post with link and direct quote from Carlson

Tags: health care; contraception; abortion; reproductive rights; fundamentalism; catholic

Sphere: Related Content

Dubya 'splains why we went to war

I don't know which of the President's handlers took an ill-timed pottybreak, but I'm betting someone got a pinkslip for letting W proclaim that Iraq provoked the US Invasion because of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US during his weekly radio address last Saturday.

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Maybe that explains why, despite the fact that all credible intel on the issue points to Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda, the CIA has decided not to pursue bin Laden despite having an "excellent idea" where he is hiding.

If Iraq had legitimately been implicated in masterminding the attacks on the US, George and Tony wouldn't have needed to go through all that effort to manufacture reasons to justify the declaration of war (let alone a war they started prior to obtaining the necessary approval to legally start this war). Got groupthink?

Hat tip to ShakeSis for the link to W's radio address.


Tags: Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; Blair

Sphere: Related Content

Hmm, I wonder if the Fundagelicals will protest this

I was actually doing some research for work when I came across this little tidbit about the folks at University of Kansas Medical Center trying to do some high through-put screening of compounds to be used as contraceptives by men. The screening is being funded by a $7.9 M grant from the NIH and is part of a 5-year contract that is a follow-up to a previous 4-year NIH grant UKMC received. Both parties hope to identify a non-hormonal chemical entity to roll into clinical trials at the end of the 5-year grant period. This is not the only foray into male contraceptive research, investigators at Australia's ANZAC Research Institute have already conducted succesful proof of concept studies of hormonal contraceptives for men.

Of course (future) access to safe and effective means of contraceptive agents to be utilized by men in no way should be taken as a reason to deny women access to contraception (hormonal or otherwise) for their own use. Even were an agent used by men 100% effective when used properly, there is no guarantee they will always be used properly or that the statement "trust me, I'm on the pill" should always be taken as the gospel truth. This, however, does level the playing field (so to speak) and allow both parties in an intimate relationship to play a key role in the responsibility of preventing unplanned pregnancy.


Tags: health care; contraception; reproductive rights; fundamentalism; catholic

Sphere: Related Content

Rare, documented case of MENstruation

There is now documented evidence that tnere is at least one boy who can definitely understand what women go throughUnfortunately for this 15 year old Indian boy, he has been "menstruating" and showing less than pleasant signs and symptoms of hormonal changes associated with menstruation for about a year now. Reports are that he has a 3-day period every month which may be due to the presence of functional (female) endometrial tissue in his prostate. Luckily he's finally under medical care (he didn't report any problems for fear of losing his job). and hopefully the etiology can be determined and an appropriate course of action taken.

Tags: menstruation; health news; odd news

Sphere: Related Content

The emperor's same old clothes

In a Gallup poll conducted last Thursday - Sunday, 57% of respondents said the war in Iraq was not worth it while 41% were still in support of the war. Additionally 56% of the 1,006 adults polled said they thought the war was going "badly" or "very badly." These results represent a continued decrease in support of the President's policy on Iraq and lend support to the legislators who want the administration to provide a detailed plan and timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Despite the decrease in support for the Iraq War, the administration's "War on Terror", the President's low approval ratings, the increase in pressure from Congress and private citizens for an investigation into the circumstances under which the war was declared, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) disputing VP Dick Cheney's overly optimistic assertion that the insurgency is in it's "last throes", the administration continues to keep it's blinders on:

In a prime time news conference last week, Bush said the United States is "making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society."

The conservative attempt to discredit the "Downing Street Memo" and supporting documentation as "fake" (as opposed to "frauds") are about as rational and easy to defend as Ann Coulter's assertion that liberals are incapable of intelligent discussion on the matter (because they disagree with her). The documents have been verify as credible and it's time to get the main stream media to do some actual journalism instead of part of the cover-up and start sorting out the mess and holding people accountable for their actions/mis-deeds. One small part of the puzzle regarding the lack of response/reporting by the main stream media (MSM) may be (further) uncovered as Raw Story is reporting that the GAO has agreed to investigate White House contracts with media to determine how widespread and the degree of impropriety. The next step is to get the folks in MSM to remember what journalism and investigative reporting is and then actually start reporting on critical issues instead of just glossing over them.



Tags: Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum;

Sphere: Related Content

There is just no pleasing some people

In a change of original plans, Michael Schiavo decided to inter his late wife's ashes in a Clearwater, Florida cemetery instead of a family plot in suburban Philadelphia near where he and Terri Schiavo grew up. Terri Schiavo's (the Schindlers) family had orginally requested that she be buried in Florida, instead of Pennsylvania, because they had moved there to be closer to her. Despite this change in plan, one that should please the Schindler family, the Schindler's are complaining via their attorney that they were not notified of the service beforehand and their distate for the grave marker which indicates the date of her collapse and decopmpensation into an irrreversible vegetative state February 25, 1990 as the day she "departed this Earth" and the date she was declared dead as the date she was "at peace."

Considering all the rancor that surrounded the case, the unsubstantiated claims of: spousal abuse (including a Fristian diagnosis of Michael Schiavo as a "wife-abuser" at the Robert Schindler's request) and/or attempted murder by Michael Schiavo, the threats of violence against Michael Schiavo's family,and the recent pronouncements indicating that Jeb Bush, along with the support of the Schindler family and their supporters, will proceed to waste even more taxpayer money for an investigation in an attempt to try find evidence to bring criminal charges against Michael Schiavo, it is perfectly understandable that Schiavo would have preferred to conduct his memorial service to his late wife without the glare of the media spotlight or the continued attacks by her family and the so called "pro-life" movement.

The only thing good to come from this debacle is a heightened awareness of the need for a "Living Will"/Advanced Directive prior to having to face theses sorts of decisions. The AMA is finally considering the best way to address the issues posed by cases like these to head off well-intentioned but completely irrational plans for legistlation that would automatically presume a desire for artificial hydration and nutrittion in perpetuity in the absence of dcoument legal instructions otherwise.

Current AMA policy states that it "is not unethical to discontinue all means of life-sustaining medical treatment in accordance with a proper substituted judgment or best interests analysis" and further states that courts should "determine who is to make treatment decisions, including appointing a guardian, rather than making treatment decisions."

The AMA is also considering a proposal from the American Association of Public Health Physicians that would require health insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, to obtain written advance directives from all new patients at time of enrollment in health plans.

Moreover, the Public Health Physicians are asking the AMA to amend the group's Principles of Medical Ethics to "explicitly recognize the rights of the patients and legally responsible family members when patients are unable to speak for themselves in determining the care provided."

In an abstract presented last month's American Thoracic Society meeting, the reported results of a survey conducted of Intensivists at San Francisco General confirmed what anyone with ICU experience already knows: many of the decisions to withdraw life support from patients who lack surrogate decision makers are made without legal intervention. In cases in which there is no Advanced Directive, but family members are available to act as surrogate decision makers, most states list a succession of relatives as legal decision makers (in general, the succession order is spouse, adult child, parent then sibling). In general, when there is dissent among family members, hospital staff end up playing peace-makers in order to try to achieve some degree of family consensus and comfort on a decision regarding continued intervention. This usually does bring about resolution, but when it does not, hospital staff will follow the directive of the family member with legal standing to make such decisions.

Unfortunately, while the Schiavo affair provided much needed attention to living wills, many people started considering extreme measures to refuse intervention because they feared the possiblity of mandated intervention in perpetuity should initiation of life support occur (especially in light of Congress' ill thought out legislative interference). Ultimately, the best practice would be to educate the public on the various types of intervention and provide general guidance regarding reversible/treatable conditions vs palliative care vs continued intervention in cases of medical futility, and encourage legal documentation of wishes (including delegation of a legally authorized respresentative to make further decisions as necessary) as well as encouraging frequent review and update as life circumstances change. In the absence of such documentation, any legislation presuming perpetual care regardless of reversibility and/or availabilty of next of kin to make decisions by proxy is irresponsible and inhumane.

Tags: terri schiavo; disability; medical futility;living will; Autonomy; Healthcare

Sphere: Related Content

More to the point

Suw Charman reports from the pre-Supernova Dinner/Berkely Cybersalon that it appears as though the folks looking at the impact blogging has had on the media pretty much miss the point since they're focused on comparing specific media types instead of looking across genre.

But I think that the point that people's attention is being diverted away from the mainstream media in all its forms by various and assorted different pursuits, and people gather their news from many different sources. The idea of the effect of blogs being felt only by the print media is as fallacious as the idea that TV and radio are only being threatened by videoblogging and podcasting.

Suw goes on to point out that people "mix and match" mediums these days in order to get their news, which is a pretty important take home message that those in mainstream media seem to be missing.

Unfortunately, in addition to completely misunderstanding the full impact of the blogosphere, they seem to miss the reason behind the draw. Why is it that people "mix and match" the mediums so much more than they used to? I'd be willing to bet that the biggest part of the draw is a compulsion to be exposed to something that isn't just more of the same. There are still people who want the whole story and to have access to different perspectives as well as pertinent documentation. Mainstream media unfortunately dumbs it down to the sound-bite or a quick blurb; this is why the focus of a story, such as abuse at Gitmo, can be completely re-directed to use of a WWII reference to avoid the actual issue being raised. People who actually want to think will be drawn to other modalities of information gathering and will actively search for all sides of the story instead of just sticking to biased presentations or ones that don't really seem to address the pertinent points/ramifications. I call it the "malt-ball effect"; it looks all nice and sweet on the outside, but once liquid hits the core there's no substance.


Tags:media; journalism; Blogging; news

Sphere: Related Content

Love Inaction

Love Inaction is what happens when folks blindly follow a "tough love" stance to reject the person another being is because they are incapable of love without judgement or conditions. According to posts a Majikthise and Republic of T, it appears as though Zach, the 16 year-old in the midst of "reparative" therapy is in for an extended tour with the inaccurately named Refuge (an additional 6 weeks, according to reports). As a minor Zach is reliant on his parents economically and any assent provided by him was likely to have been coerced with threats of loss of benefit (i.e., we'll toss you out on your ass and you'll have to fend for yourself with no money to pay for housing, clothes food and, as a 16 year old, you'll have a really hard time finding a job to pay for those most basic things). As someone who has become a bit of a cause celebre, Zach is at even more risk for increased pressure to succumb to the will of those conducting his "reparation" therapy (so he can be trotted out as an example of "success") or retribution if the therapy does not ellicit the demanded response. The additional 6 weeks of treatment leads me to believe the LIA folks have jacked it up quite a bit to make an example of the boy. As he is still beholden to his parents upon his release, any failure of the "therapy" will be unacceptable as they seem to believe homosexuality is something Zach sought out and refuses to give up despite a "proper re-education" in what is acceptable and what is abominable in the eyes of his church. If Zach is "repaired" the final outcome will be for him to reject himself and his own nature as evil, disgusting and sinful, and to spend his life sublimating the person he actually is and pretending to be something/someone other than that. He is, in short, being taught self-loathing and instructed to live in constant fear to prevent any part of his own nature from showing its true face.

The policy statement on adoloscence & homosexuality of the American Pediatrics Association states unequivocally

Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.

The American Psychiatric Association goes further into the potential for harm of "reparative therapy"

The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Adolescents are already in the midst of the emotional turmoil that is growing up and in a critical path to their emotional development. The need to fit in and be accepted (heck, to just not be the brunt of nasty comments/actions by their peers) is at the highest during this stage of human development. Teens who have difficulty coping with rejection, being ostracized, instability, the pressure to be something/someone they are not and the hopelessness that comes with these tend to develop depression that may lead to suicidal ideation and attempts at suicide. The increased risk of loneliness, feelings of rejection and happiness is exacerbated when a person (especially a teenager) does not have (or does not think s/he has) an appropriate support network. In the case of gay teens like Zach the family, which should be the bastion of solace and refuge, is part and parcel to the rejection and stigmatization. Organizations like LIA and those groups that support these organizations will not present any scenario in which homosexuals are anything but "lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction" because a core purpose to their being is to ensure this is the case. Additionally, organizations that conduct "reparative therapy" have a large stake in ensuring the dissemination of this propaganda assists in fulfilling its prophecy as a means to drum up business and fulfill their financial bottom line.

You may find homosexuality to be something that runs counter to your religious beliefs, but I can't see how any person of conscience can condone the mental and emotional manipulation of anyone (let alone a child) to attempt to control that person's minds, beliefs and/or feelings. It may be gay kids now, but who knows what the next target group will be that's considered in need of repair by the fundagelical movement or our government. Do something now, so you don't have to pray someone will step in to help you if/when the time comes.

Tags: gay; christian; evangelical ; cult; love in action; reparative therapy

Sphere: Related Content