July 08, 2006
If You`re Not Threatening Toddlers You`re Part of the Problem
by JeremyPoor Professor Deborah Frisch. Has this country shifted so far to the right that a person can't verbally assault and implicitly threaten someone's two year old son without being persecuted simply for being a lefty? All she wrote (to Jeff Goldstein who, perhaps not coincidentally is exceptionally sharp of mind and accomplished as a writer and hence very difficult to dismiss intellectually) were things like this:
[...] as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your “tyke” it wouldn’t slow me down one iota. You aren’t “human” to me.[...]
Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby.
Are you still married to the woman you humped to produce the toddler?
[...]
Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me! LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don’t mind!
Somehow, Jeffy boy, I think you get off on the possibility of Frenching your pathetic progeny, even if it is a boy. You seem like a VERY, VERY sick mofo to me, bro.
[...]
Just my two cents: The pathetic jeffy boy goldstein plays the jew card 24/7.
I'd link to Jeff's blog but it has been under Denial of Service attack for the past two days (how dare he complain when his son's life is threatened by a reality based academic? He must be anti-intellectual).
Frisch, astoundingly, feels persecuted by the outrage she has inspired. The likelihood that the woman needs psychiatric help increases rather than diminishes the importance of her being held accountable for this behavior. She's free to remain in denial but the victims of her verbal abuse should not have to shoulder any such burden.
UPDATE: It's a little frightening to think about, but in 2002 Frisch conducted a workshop to educate FBI officers in how to handle terrorist threats. We know this is the same Deborah Frisch on the basis of the short bio at the end of this offensive article by her on Counterpunch. So there you have it: a woman who agrees with Ward Churchill that the 911 victims were all 'little Eichmanns' (she thinks it a brilliant bit of intellectual nuance) and who posted on the day of the London Underground bombings "we are all qaeda today" was sharing her expertise with FBI officers on decision making in the face of potential terrorist threats.
By all appearances she was passing as a reasonable person back then, but frankly that makes it all the more scary. And it makes me wonder what she might have suggested to her audience about such things as "How to understand the terrorist mindset so as to be able to predict the selection of terrorist targets" and "The American cultural preoccupation with assigning blame" and why it is that "participants agreed that stereotyping and racial profiling aren't the solution because such actions can do more harm than good." The conference referred to above was called "Countering Terrorism: Integration of Practice and Theory" and a (long, slow loading pdf) report on the conference can be found here. She also was on a committee soliciting proposals for reports on disaster preparedness to be used for "program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress."
It gives me the creeps that she was anywhere near the policy-making loop regarding homeland security.
Bush derangement syndrome is the perfect outlet for emotionally disturbed individuals like her. She should seek therapy before she hurts somebody and ends up in the slammer.
Posted by: Carlos at July 8, 2006 09:51 PM
I used to work as a direct-care counselor with people who where severely mentally ill (and for the record, I'm not saying Frisch is because I honestly have no idea) but it was very common for them to attribute the onset of their troubles (however they understood them: some knew they were mentally ill, others figured they were victims of witchcraft or government mind control, etc.) to a time in their life when the people close to them inexplicably started abandoning and betraying them.
Of course you or I realize it's exactly the other way around. You start talking or acting crazy enough and your friends will stop calling, your boss will discipline you, your landlord will give you an ultimatum, the cops will hassle you for 'no reason' -- so in that sense it really is a conspiracy, except the mastermind and the 'victim' are one and the same. And just like with addiction some people only get help, willingly or not, once they've hit bottom. And I guess the same pattern can apply on a subtler level with run-of-the-mill emotional problems. But either way, it sure seems like that sort of pattern is going on with this Frisch person.
Posted by: Jeremy at July 8, 2006 10:39 PM
Someone ought to submit a FOIA and find out how much the FBI paid her for her "briefing" and to find out if she has ever done other such "briefings". Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Patrick Poole at July 9, 2006 12:17 AM
What is Bush Derangement Syndrom? Maybe it has something to do with a stupid little theocon. born with a silver spoon in his mouth, pretending to be John Wayne of 1600 PA Ave.. Maybe it has something to do with all the greedy selfish pigs in his train like Cheney and Rove and the millions of right wing robots who can't do much more than parrot the latest AM talk or blog slogans.
Posted by: Jakealope at July 9, 2006 10:13 AM
>>>What is Bush Derangement Syndrom?
BDS for short. You appear to be suffering a bad case yourself.
Posted by: Carlos at July 9, 2006 11:07 AM
Q: What is Bush Derangement Syndrome? (from Jackelope)
A: You.
Posted by: Mikey at July 10, 2006 02:11 AM
To answer the question somewhat sincerely, in case anyone visits who genuinely wants to know, I will endeavor to define Bush Derangement Syndrome as I understand it.
Back in 2000 I was part of the left wing chorus howling about how the country would turn to crap if Bush won the election. The thing is, the country did: the golden age of rampant capitalist greed under the Clinton administration (i.e. the NASDAQ bubble) finally popped; then 9/11 and two wars. But it occurred to me that these things, apart from the decision to invade Iraq (which I nevertheless supported) were not Bush's fault.
One symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome, then, would be that the patient sees all the tragedy and horror of the past few years as the fulfillment of that prophecy of doom back in 2000.
An important diagnostic criterion would be a marked tendency to blame President Bush for every negative contingency. The clinician should acknowledge that some of the unpleasantness that the patient observes can be attributed to the president but it does not behoove the patient to blame the president for everything that makes him sad or hurt or angry.
Diagnostic Test: Flash cards are held up for the patient, one bearing a picture of president Bush, the other a collage of photographic images of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, the Marqis de Sade, Pol Pot, and Vlad the Impaler. The patient is asked to select the card he or she would estimate to represent the larger vector of raw malevolence (the healthy subject should not choose the Bush card).
Diagnostic Test Question #2: If you were granted the power to wish one of the following scenarios into being, which would you choose:
A) All disease is cured, including such mental dysfunctions as greed, racism, sadism, etc, and the crisis in Darfur is completely reversed, but Jeb Bush becomes the next president of the United States.
B) President Bush and his family are killed in a fiery plane crash.
(The healthy subject would be expected to choose option A.)
Posted by: Jeremy at July 10, 2006 03:39 AM
Okay, so I will bite. What then is the opposite of Bush Derangement Syndrome? I mean people who support Bush when he has proven over and over again to be such a spectacular failure as a chief executive?
Unlike Jeremy, I didnt weep when Bush was elected in 2000. I didnt vote for him, but Gore was bore, we were at peace (and the peace dividend was still coming) and the country ws prosperous. (Can you still remember the impeachment hearings?!? How friggin innocent we were then?) I figured, geez, Bush is clearly stumbling upward but how much damage can he do? One term and then we would get serious about things again.
Like the rest of you, 9/11 knocked me pretty solidly on my ass, and I will readily admit that I was in Bushs 90% October 2001 approval demographic (who wasnt?). I wont go through the entire litany of what Bush did to push me steadily from support to doubt to active hostility (that, after all, is what the rest of the internet is for), but lets just take a look at Afghanistan. A necessary war, yes, of course. And the results?
1. Didnt kill or capture Osama
2. Didnt destroy Taliban
3. Didnt destroy al qaida
4. Turned country into a lawless narco state run by drug warlords (record heroin production this year, by the way).
So, help me out here. Props to Bush for that? Come on.
As for Iraq, is any comment necessary? I couldn't help noticing, Jeremy, that you said you supported the Iraq war (past tense) but are you still all rah rah for that bloodbath? Have you seen the shit coming out of Baghad? It makes Grozny look like Daytona. Is it unreasonable to hold Bush/Rummy/Cheney responsible for at least some of that?
And the rampant war-profiteering of American corporations over there? I mean, do you have to be a organic-produce-buying, Birkenstock-wearing Bush hater to be of the opinion that handing out billions in NO-BID, COST-PLUS (profit guaranteed) contracts to the company that the VP resigned from to become VP is, like, a fundamental conflict of interest?
Or Katrina. No, Bush didnt whip up the winds himself, but the laughable federal response of his shining new DHS was a textbook example of the rampant cronyism and flat-out criminal incompetence that characterize this admin.
And one more thing. Given Bushs current approval ratings, you might want to consider the fact that one doesnt generally come up with Syndromes to explain the views of the masses. Thats called, like, the majority opinion. Syndromes are devised to explicate minority or fringe opinions. You know, like Bush supporters.
Posted by: Crispy at July 12, 2006 01:47 AM
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
