Let's kill all the old people...
Mort Zuckerman
afa...@niaid.nih.gov, Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org,
fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, nati...@nytimes.com,
dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net, tr...@hotmail.com,
illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com, tinaj...@yahoo.com,
jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, rrmcg...@aol.com
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org
Subject: Let's kill all the old people...
Date: May 7, 2009 9:21 PM
"Lefever also told the task force that the pursuit of 'human rights'
was, by definition, unethical:
"These words–morals and ethics–do not mean 'the ways of the
individual' or individual rights. ***Any time the rights of the
individual are placed above what is best for the community, it is, by
definition, unethical or immoral.*** The discussion of individual
rights is the domain of “human rights” organizations (like ACLU)."
(ARTICLE BELOW)
================
Given the health care crisis in America
and our national bankruptcy, I suggest we
then kill all the old people and all the
sick people. And let's also kill all the
convicted criminals, injured soldiers,
children with autism, all the men and women
who produce children outside of marriage,
all the gays and drug users who spread AIDS.
Let's also get rid of all the crazy people
and the mentally retarded people like the
entire DCF staff.
How about also, let's kill all the scientists
and MDs who lie on grant applications, and
all the people who make up war lies like
the Niger Uranium letter.
Let's kill everyone who ever made a mistake
and/or are bad drivers. We should also kill
all the people who resold bad mortgages and/or
fraudulently sold insurance against the risk of
acquiring fraudulently rated mortgages.
They all cost way too much money, which is
bad for the community.
We should most of all kill all the people
who think they're experts on the human brain
and human motivation despite changing their
stories about it *daily* (and therefore I propose
a sp. novo: Homo sapiens permutaciens), but never
once mentioning "evil," despite participating in
the endeavors of MKULTRA. In a word, psychiatrists
and psychologist are NUTS. Screwballs. Stuck
on a merry-go-round. They're flighty. They act
like, well, electrons...
Like, ya know what Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is? The Uncertainty Principle applies
to psychology-at-large *and* to every individual
participant of it. *THAT's* where their brains
are. Non-linear, dynamic, all-over-the-place-
brainscramble. And like a "wave," there's nothing
*to* any of their -isms or dogma.
Here is your proof (below). They can't
even agree on "What's a bad thing to do."
And *none* of them marched on Washington over
any of the atrocities of the Bush Administration,
which is the final point of proof that penises
mean nothing, and that there *is* *nothing*
about males who worship themselves that is
admirable.
I sure wish they'd all go away because they're
not helping us understand what we need to do
about the Torturing Bushies. The NAZI war
criminals got trials, didn't they?
Is that because they were white, ya think?
Or was there another principle at work
in the world at that time? 'One that lawyers
*knew* (past tense; does not refer to current
lawyering in Amairka) something about?
And finally, if I was a psychiamo, myself,
I would say all this word-scramble and brain
scramble was simple "defense mechanisms."
I would diagnose "AFRAID," or whatever is
the DSM term for "COWARD." [I mean, if I
knew what the "drug" for "COWARD", was, since
the-drugs-always-define-the-"disorder" in this
arena of "health" ...]
Confused?
Don't thank *me.* I did not make this
crazy crazy crap up. It was the "Modernists:"
http://www.actionlyme.org/PSYCHIA_SATANISM.htm
It was the "Enlightened" ones.
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
================================
http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz05062009.html
A "Natural Reaction"?
APA Ethics Policy-Maker Endorses Torture
By STEPHEN SOLDZ
On Monday NPR broadcast a story in which former military SERE
[Survival, Resistance, Evasion, and Escape] psychologist Bryce Lefever
openly endorsed US torture, saying it was a “natural” reaction of SERE
psychologists to hearing their country was attacked by terrorists. In
the piece, Lefever makes clear that, in his opinion, he is only
stating publicly what virtually all military psychologists thought.
Lefever explicitly renounces the quaint psychologist ethics code with
its “Do No Harm” standard. If causing pain will reduce the total harm
in the world, then it is the only ethical way to go, Lefever told NPR
listeners.
Lefever’s ethical attitudes are especially interesting as he was a
member of the American Psychological Association’s task force on
Psychological Ethics and National Security.
One might think that APA officials and PENS members would be surprised
by Lefever’s pro-torture positions. But that would be naive. For
Lefever expressed exactly these opinions on the PENS listserve. In
fact, he complained that the “political” nature of the task force — by
which he evidently means the fact that it was designed to provide
ethical cover, akin to the legal cover provided by Justice Department
lawyers, for the Defense Department program of abusive interrogations
— prevented serious discussion of his opinions:
In fact the PENS meeting was a steep learning curve for me in that
it was a far more political process than I anticipated and I had hoped
that we would have worked out our positions via intellectual or
philosophical debate. When I brought up the idea of harm, and what is
harm, it fell on deaf ears. I pointed out that behavioral and
psychological techniques used in training our high-risk-of-capture
students in Survival Schools [SERE] are viewed as vital, necessary,
good, and for the greater good. Psychologists are strong proponents of
these techniques even though they inflict psychological and physical
pain. Yet the very same behaviors are proscribed by the Department of
Defense and viewed as harmful when applied to America’s prisoners.
Notice that Lefever appears here to be acknowledging that SERE-based
techniques were indeed being used on US detainees, a fact conveniently
ignored by the more politically savvy members of the task force. After
all, they well knew, the plan was to pretend that military
psychologists were protecting detainees from torture, rather than
applying well-known torture techniques in pursuit of the “greater
good.” And Lefever was in a position to know about the use of SERE
techniques against detainees as he served in Afghanistan, “where he
lectured to interrogators and was consulted on various interrogation
techniques,” according to his PENS biography.
Lefever also told the task force that the pursuit of “human rights”
was, by definition, unethical:
These words–morals and ethics–do not mean “the ways of the
individual” or individual rights. Any time the rights of the
individual are placed above what is best for the community, it is, by
definition, unethical or immoral. The discussion of individual rights
is the domain of “human rights” organizations (like ACLU).
While it is likely that many others involved in the PENS process
shared Lefever’s opinions of human rights, none were politically naive
enough to say so. After all, such individual opinions might interfere
with the greater good of providing cover for the SERE-based
interrogations that had become US standard operating procedure.
Meanwhile, the APA touted the PENS report, with its supposedly careful
examination of the ethics of psychologist aid to interrogations, as
evidence of their systematic examination of the ethical dilemmas
involved when psychologists aid secret national security
interrogations. Bryce Lefever’s comments put the lie to that carefully
constructed cover story.
As Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Human
Rights, bioethicist Steven Miles, and others have said recently, we
urgently need an independent investigation of psychologists’ aid to
abusive interrogations. Such an investigation must examine the role of
the APA and its leadership in providing ethical cover for this torture
program.
Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health
researcher, and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of
Psychoanalysis. He maintains the Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice
web site and the Psyche, Science, and Society blog. He is a founder of
the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, one of the organizations
working to change American Psychological Association policy on
participation in abusive interrogations. He is also a Steering
Committee member of Psychologists for Social Responsibility [PsySR].
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci