According to the
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2213075,00.html">Guardian:
...because it minimally adheres to certain
superficial conventions, it can masquerade as a "news" outfit and enjoy
all the rights that accrue to that...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Jack Balkin says no:
First, the MCA puts the President in an interesting position: the U.S. is still bound by Geneva, but there is no way for individuals to enforce violations of Geneva (except that grave breaches of Common Article 3 can still be prosecuted under the War Crimes Statute). However,…
Jim Macdonald offers some excellent advice to military personnel over at Making Light.
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is straightforward and clear. Under Article VI of the Constitution, it forms part of the supreme law of the land.
You personally will be held responsible for all of your…
A couple of people over the last few days have emailed me links to articles about whether Justice Scalia should recuse himself from today's Hamdan case (a case involving whether detainess at Gitmo must be given civil trials in American courts) because of his recent remarks indicating how he would…
At the Guardian, Krithika Varagur interviewed workers inside the Indonesian factory that manufactures clothing for Ivanka Trump’s fashion line, finding poverty wages, anti-union intimidation and unreasonably high production targets. The story includes interviews with more than a dozen workers, who…
Great analogy. I agree completely.
I think a more apt analogy is this:
Psychiatry is to actual help as clowns are to surgery.
This comment will probably never see the light of your blog, but you should try getting the DVD from CCHR.org called "Psychiatry, an Industry of Death". If it doesn't make you have any doubts about being a psychiatrist dispensing drugs that routinely kill people (15,000 elderly alone last year), then you don't have a conscience. But we already knew that.
Jay: This post is not about psychiatry, so your analogy is off-topic. As for the question of whether the comment will see the light of day, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I can't tell if it is serious, or merely an advertisement for people to go out and spend money on one of Scientology's bits of propaganda.
Most people do not need to spend money on propaganda, since there is so much available for free.
Jay: This post is not about psychiatry, so your analogy is off-topic. As for the question of whether the comment will see the light of day, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I can't tell if it is serious, or merely an advertisement for people to go out and spend money on one of Scientology's bits of propaganda.
Most people do not need to spend money on propaganda, since there is so much available for free.
"If [the latest propaganda salvo from CCHR] doesn't make you have any doubts about being a psychiatrist dispensing drugs that routinely kill people ... then you don't have a conscience"
-- OR you know that CCHR is an utterly unreliable source. It's been several decades since William Arnold admitted in court that Frances Farmer never had a lobotomy; that it was just one of many lurid details in Shadowland that he had "fictionalized". Why does the CCHR still falsely inform people on its website that Farmer was lobotomized? Why does it falsely inform people that Farmer "never regained her abilities" after psychiatric treatment, and not mention Farmer hosting "Frances Farmer Presents", the number-one show in the Indianapolis market for nearly all six years of its run?
If "Jay" doesn't have doubts about accepting unchecked any claims he gets from the propaganda of known liars, perhaps it is he who is not a person of conscience.