Best of the Web Today - February 14, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
From the White House to the Madhouse?
One wonders if the New York Times would have run this article during the Clinton years:
All told, almost half of American presidents from 1789 to 1974 had suffered from a mental illness at some point in life, according to a recent analysis of biographical sources by psychiatrists at Duke University Medical Center. And more than half of those presidents, the study found, struggled with their symptoms--most often depression--while in office. . . .
In some cases, they included problems not usually thought of as mental disorders: William Howard Taft, the 27th president, for example, suffered from difficulty breathing while asleep--most likely because of a disorder known as sleep apnea--and often dozed off during important meetings.
In most cases the disorders recall the men: the indefatigable Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson showed symptoms of the manic energy that characterizes bipolar disorder; Richard Nixon drank heavily through the Watergate period; and Calvin Coolidge plunged into a pit of depression after his teenage son died of an infection.
"The lifetime rate of mental illness . . . is identical to that found in some surveys of the American population," the Times notes. In other words, it's not that presidents are lunatics but that they're as likely as ordinary Joes to be among the "worried well"--i.e., those who occasionally get bummed out or have one too many to drink.
Another Times piece, though, may have important political implications although it is ostensibly apolitical:
Psychotherapeutic techniques like psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy, which deal with emotional conflict and are based on the idea that the exploration of past trauma is critical to healing, have been totally eclipsed by cognitive behavioral approaches.
That relatively new school holds that reviewing the past is not only unnecessary to healing, but can be counterproductive. . . .
"At the moment," [psychologist John Norcross] said, "there is no evidence that understanding the origins of your problems is necessary for effective psychotherapy. And there is some evidence that a preoccupation with the past can actually interfere with making changes in the present.
"Obsessive rumination about past events can trap patients in a self-defeating cycle from which they cannot extricate themselves. It can actually retard healing."
Could Al Gore and thousands of others like him benefit from cognitive behavior therapy?
Clash of Civilization
Reuters reports from Beirut that the Danish cartoon conflagration "has prompted many in the Middle East to ask why Muslims have rarely mobilized to address other pressing issues such as democracy and human rights":
"Why today we see all this solidarity to protest the cartoons. . .as if only these pictures had insulted the Prophet Mohammad," Ali Mahdi wrote in a letter published in Lebanon's left-wing daily As-Safir.
"Don't you think that injustice, torture, illiteracy and the restrictions on freedoms (in the Muslim world) are also considered an insult to the Prophet . . . who called for the respect for human rights?" . . .
Several Arab Web logs posted the cartoons and hosted online debates about them. Many left-wing and secular-minded Muslims also circulated the cartoons by e-mail.
"What is the use of getting angry for the sake of the Prophet when I have a thousand poor people in my neighborhood?" wrote one Egyptian blogger on his Web site "Justice for Everyone."
"What is the use of writing a million letters (about the Prophet's greatness) when I wet my pants every time a police car passes by my house?"
It's a useful counterpoint to those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible--a common position on both the anti-Muslim right and the antidemocratic left.
Voting With Their Fetus
There's a kerfuffle in Canberra over the abortion drug RU-486, and the Sydney Morning Herald quotes an Aussie abortion foe, parliamentarian Danna Vale, making an interesting observation:
"I have read . . . comments by a certain imam from the Lakemba Mosque [who] actually said that Australia is going to be a Muslim nation in 50 years' time," said Mrs Vale, MP for the southern Sydney seat of Hughes.
"I didn't believe him at the time. But . . . look at the birthrates and you look at the fact that we are aborting ourselves almost out of existence by 100,000 abortions every year. . . . You multiply that by 50 years. That's 5 million potential Australians we won't have here."
Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar.
World's Greatest Baby-Sitter
The Associated Press reports from Jerusalem on a seemingly obvious innovation in incarceration:
Israeli army jailers at a tough facility for Palestinian security prisoners in the Negev desert have discovered a unique deterrent against disturbances: television.
In the year since the first TV set was installed in the Ketziot prison, there have been no serious disturbances that required tear gas for dispersal--up to then a common occurrence, said the soldiers' weekly "Bamahane" in its current issue.
The prison commander, identified only as Lt. Col. Avi by the magazine, said the security prisoners spend their time watching television instead of planning disturbances. "The culture of planning hostile activity here is withering away," he told the weekly.
Jailers control the channel selection, the magazine said, limiting viewing to the three main Israeli channels, CNN and a Jordanian TV station.
Now and then we hear about outrages in the U.S. court system in which crazy judges order prisons to prove cable TV to inmates. This suggests that the crazy judges just may be on to something.
What Would Iran Do Without Experts?
"Iran Is Prepared to Retaliate, Experts Warn"--headline, Boston Globe, Feb. 12
Friendly Fire
Remember Paul Hackett? He's the Iraq veteran and Ohio Democrat who last August narrowly lost a special House election in a heavily Republican district. This year he was supposed to be his party's great hope for defeating Sen. Mike DeWine; Angry Leftoids over at the Daily Kos and elsewhere were touting him as one of the "fighting Dems"--Democrats running on their military records, in the grand tradition of Max Cleland, John Kerry*, Wesley Clark and, well, Paul Hackett. Hey, it's the law of averages: One day, one of these guys has to win!
But it won't be Hackett, not this year anyway. The Associated Press reports that he's been pushed aside:
Hackett said he was pressured by party leaders to drop out of the Senate primary and run for the House against Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt instead.
National Democratic leaders, especially Sen. Charles Schumer, added to that pressure by telling his top fundraisers to stop sending money, Hackett said.
"My donor base and host base on both coasts was contacted by elected officials and asked to stop giving," Hackett told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "The original promise to me from Schumer was that I would have no financial concerns. It went from that to Senator Schumer actually working against my ability to raise money."
Schumer and other establishment Dems are backing Rep. Sherrod Brown. Another AP dispatch quotes Hackett: "For me, this is a second betrayal. First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me." And the Angry Left just got angrier.
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam for 120 days and promised 380 days ago to release his military records.
The Gang of 13?
A riled Rhode Islander called Brenda Mitchell gives the Providence Journal a piece of her mind:
In Sen. Lincoln Chafee's world, inconsistency trumps principles. . . . Despite declaring his intent to vote against Samuel Alito's confirmation for the Supreme Court, Senator Chafee voted with his party to end debate on Alito's nomination--guaranteeing Alito's ascension to the court. In other words, Senator Chafee voted for Sam Alito before voting against him.
The headline: "He Voted for Alito." In fact, he voted against Alito; he voted for "cloture," meaning in favor of allowing the Senate to vote on Alito.
Which raises an interesting hypothetical scenario: Suppose Chafee survives his primary challenge but loses to a Democrat in the general election because his liberal constituents are convinced that a vote for cloture is a vote for Alito.
Now consider a counterfactual past scenario: Suppose last May the "gang of 14" had not reached a compromise, so that the Republicans had invoked the "nuclear option" and abolished the judicial filibuster. Then there would not have been a cloture vote on Alito, so Chafee would have cast only one vote, presumably against the nominee. He also would have voted against the nuclear option, which he was on record as opposing, so he would have been completely consistent by the lights of Brenda Mitchell.
Which means that if our hypothetical comes true, the compromise will turn out to have cost the Senate's most liberal Republican his seat.
Scalia Imitates the Onion
"Justice Antonin Scalia, overlooked for the vacated position of Supreme Court chief justice, went on a spiteful abortion-performing bender over the weekend. . . . Scalia added that 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore 'totally won that election, any idiot knows that.' "--Onion, Sept. 21, 2005
" 'That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that,' Scalia said."--Associated Press, Feb. 14, 2006
Robert Hallstrom Nails It
The San Francisco Chronicle has a feature called "Two Cents," apparently based on the Onion's "American Voices." We noted this feature in 2003, when one Laurel Eby described herself as "torn" over which side to root for in Iraq: "I obviously don't want any more of our soldiers getting killed, but I also wouldn't mind the quagmire going on just long enough to ruin Bush's re-election chances."
Sunday's "Two Cents" posed the following question: "Who's more dangerous: bin Laden or Bush?" Even in the batty Bay Area most (though alas not all) said bin Laden. But Robert Hallstrom of Pittsburg (that's a California town spelled with no H) got it exactly right:
My jaw dropped in disbelief at this question. Everyone has their own reality. We see things differently. Some wear aluminum foil hats so others cannot listen in to their thoughts. Some converse with spirits. You guys have been reading your own newspaper for too long.
Sounds Like the Democrats in 2004
"Love Is . . . a Pillow Fight to Be President of France"--headline, Financial Times, Feb. 13
American Express Stands Its Ground
"Reid Battles Charge"--headline, Roll Call, Feb. 13
Robert E. Lee's RSS Feed Has Some Glitches, Too
"U.S. Grant Web Site Doesn't Work With Macs"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 13
'Brokeback' Breaks Out in Spokane!
Mickey Kaus has been leading a quixotic effort to debunk what he calls the "Heartland Breakout meme," namely the proposition that "Brokeback Mountain," the critically acclaimed film about homosexual shepherds' doomed love, is catching on in conservative parts of the country. But Kaus has notably failed to note this story from Spokane, Wash., an area President Bush carried in 2004 by a margin of nearly 12%:
Fans of No. 5 Gonzaga have been asked to stop yelling "Brokeback Mountain" at opposing players.
The reference to the recent movie about homosexual cowboys was chanted by some fans during Monday's game against Saint Mary's, and is apparently intended to suggest an opposing player is gay.
The chants were the subject of several classroom discussions over the past week, and the faculty advisers for the Kennel Club booster group urged students this week to avoid "inappropriate chants" during the Bulldogs' Saturday game against Stanford, which was nationally televised on ESPN.
That's right, the kids like "Brokeback" so much, they're calling out its name during basketball games. How do you explain that, Mickey?
'I Wish I Knew How to Quit You'
"Gay Bishop Enters Treatment for Alcoholism"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 14
What Would We Do Without Studies?
"Penis Enlargement Surgery a Waste of Time--Study"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 13
Thanks for the Tip!--XLVIII
"Health Tip: Keep Kids Safe on the Playground"--headline, HealthDayNews, Feb. 14
Bottom Story of the Day
"Cape Dorset Named Most 'Artistic' Municipality"--headline, Canadian Broadcast Corp. Web site, Feb. 13
Be My McValentine
"This Valentine's Day, retailers are thumbing their noses at hearts and redirecting arrows at Cupid himself," reports USA Today. "Traditionally sweet symbols and sayings are getting tweaked in the card and gift aisles, resulting in teddy bears that are more wry than warm and fuzzy and candies that are more sarcastic than saccharine":
It's a reflection of the anti-Valentine sentiment that's been streaking through the holiday for the past few years, with singletons asserting their solidarity in Feb. 14 parties that champion camaraderie over coupling.
After all, divorces, prenuptial agreements and annulments historically spike around Valentine's Day.
So do silly op-eds, like this one from Laura Vanderkam, also in USA Today, which blames the iPod for love troubles:
iPods make music lovers swoon. There's a problem with following their dictates, though, when it comes to finding a partner. Too much choice makes people less likely to commit. In a famous study, business professor Sheena Iyengar and social psychologist Mark Lepper had two displays of jams set up in a grocery store. One had six varieties, the other 24. The larger display lured more tasters, but people were 10 times as likely to buy jam from the smaller one.
No wonder U.S. album sales (which require committing to one artist) fell about 7% in 2005--and fewer young people are willing to commit to a special someone.
Our checklists also make it harder to let ourselves love that special someone. "On iPods we have just what we want, but there's nothing surprising," says Scott Haltzman, co-author, with Theresa Foy DiGeronimo, of The Secrets of Happily Married Men. "You never get a 'Whoa! I haven't heard that song before.' "
If we follow this, the reason young people have trouble finding lasting love is too many choices (as in the jam aisle) and not enough novelty (the lack of "a 'Whoa! I haven't heard that song before.' ") There's no way an ordinary person could overcome both these problems at once, which is why we have dating and relationship coaches. From the other USA Today piece:
"People are tired of the pressure, of making it so commercial," says Ana Weber, a dating and relationship coach based in Newport Beach, Calif. (In 2005, Unity Marketing found that Valentine's is the third-biggest gift-giving holiday, behind Christmas and Mother's Day; celebrators spend $126 on average.) "Romance and passion and love should be something more spontaneous. This is not a business deal."
But unless Weber works free, what is a "dating and relationship coach" but one for whom love is "a business deal"? Anyway, USA Today shows where it stands on the subject with this promo: "Money and Life sections are combined today." |
