Nevermind Reaganomics and nevermind shit rolling downhill, too. Aggression/nastiness/snarkiness trickle down, as well. This is equally well known to occur in corporate, organizational and family settings where the likely outcome of.
FIGHTING BOSSES is a yield a crop of FIGHTING WORKERS
WARRING ADMINISTRATORS supervise SNARKY STAFF
&
HATEFUL COUPLES seem to birth EITHER ANGRY SIBLINGS or PISS-IN-BEDS.
|
 |
One produces two ... Two four ... & 2x2 ... x2 = 1012
Twenty iterations and you're over 1,000,000
Another six or Seven and you win the Election.
LIKE BUNNIES, aye?
Funny or not funny, at all, that it wasn't so many years ago that a Vermont Governor who raised his voice -- predicting victory in his primary in a rally for his supporters -- was run outa town and Presidential consideration.
Curious ... Something must be different ... as now LoudAngryDonald ... our screaming and accusatory POTUS nominee screams and projects anger in the Angry Heads that proliferate and follow him around as if he were a Cherry Garcia Banana Split with a Cherry on His Nose!
Beat him up ... I'll pay for your attorney
I remember a day when people like that would leave on a Stretcher
Tell'em to Go Fuck Himself
McCaine? Why would I respect a Loser?
Muslims and Mexicans and Mexican Lawyers? Not like us!
Only thing missing?
Whose gonna self-pay to Fuck our Democracy? You are, Donnie!
You! You! You!
"Arbeit-folk! Rah! Rah! and Sieg Heil ... We'll do it, together!
You and Me Against the World!"
(InFuckingDeed!)
So, what's different. Howard Dean gets tossed and Donnie Drumpf gets embraced as The Great White Hope ... Ingmar Johannsen. Are we just angrier as a People, now? Angry Birds did seem to take off and haven't yet seen an App called LoveBirds ... have you? And while we're talking, this Nazi-Schmazi Blog that I write doesn't seem to universally embrace the precepts preached by Jesus on the Mount (Matthew 5). No "love your enemy" and No "turn the other cheek."
I claim no great understanding and no pass on being responsible for my own anger. I had a dream months ago where I got DJT in a choke hold ... maybe squeezed the very life out of him ... not clear ... and then turned him into the Pillsbury Dough-Boy ... deep, white, squooshy flesh. Maybe that was nastier than choking him ... turning him into a caricature, as I do in this blog. I have been fascinated, though, that in both the Trump-Supporters and the Never-Trumpers ... in all of us, that is ... anger and the intolerance of difference seem to be rather common.
I recently joined one of the groups that were clearly aligned against the promise of a Trump Presidency. It was a group of Mental Health Professionals who gathered on-line to discuss the Trump phenomenon. Fairly quickly after my joining, there seemed to develop at least one split in the group of participants. One side averred a wish to discuss Trumpism ... as I understand it, the phenomenon of the Strong-Man Leader and the Sheepish-if-Strident followers. The other group, I think smaller and the one in which I felt most comfort, had mixed feelings about breaking the Goldwater Rule while maintaining the Tarasoff Decision ... lemme explain.
In brief (I found the Wikipedia descriptions of these two general principles quite adequate for anyone interested), the Goldwater Rule prohibits the professional diagnosis of public figures by professionals without clinically meeting with them and without their informed consent. Tarasoff, on the other hand, argues that if, as a professional, you become aware of the possibility that someone is likely to be harmed or abused, you must report this in a manner that makes that abuse or harm less likely.
Two Goods! Two Goods in opposition to each other in this case of Trump for President. After all, if I -- as a mental health professional -- feel that someone (or 7 Billion someones) might be in danger should a certain Candidate for POTUS become POTUS (e.g., a candidate who openly displays recklessness and lack of empathy and no ability to show any vulnerability in themselves) am I mandated to report this. The Tarasoff ruling requires, indeed, that I report this to the authorities and/or to the person in danger of being harmed, if I professionally fear that it may have such hurtful consequences to other.
Disagreement on such a matter may appear harmless. It wasn't. A call came in disenfranchising, disfellowshipping, excommunicating me. Hardly an act of violence ... disinviting someone to participate in a list-serv ... Still curious to me that folk cannot disagree in the present environment without, as many have said, disagreeableness or fragmentation. Alas.
Disagreement on such a matter may appear harmless. It wasn't. A call came in disenfranchising, disfellowshipping, excommunicating me. Hardly an act of violence ... disinviting someone to participate in a list-serv ... Still curious to me that folk cannot disagree in the present environment without, as many have said, disagreeableness or fragmentation. Alas.
When this over, shall we all be angry clowns? Maybe.
I sent you the text of this Medscape article in case you don’t want to bother going to http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/867320 — though I suggest you read the 170 and growing comments there — including mine! I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a record for Medscape.
ReplyDeleteMedscape Psychiatry
Is Psychoanalyzing Our Politicians Fair Game?
Nassir Ghaemi, MD, MPH
Introduction (excerpt)
Psychiatry imposes on itself a unique kind of self-censorship. It's called the "Goldwater rule," because it came about after a 1964 magazine poll of psychiatrists about the Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. The basic idea is that psychiatrists shouldn't give clinical opinions about politicians. The rule makes sense in some ways, but not in others. In this article, I'm going to suggest where it's helpful and where it only adds to the problem of inappropriate and discriminatory psychologizing.
At the outset, let's be clear about one thing: Much of this debate is rooted in discrimination against psychiatric disease, a bias that is not only immoral but also false. What if having a psychiatric condition made you more fit to lead, rather than unfit? Think of Abraham Lincoln's melancholy and Winston Churchill's manic-depression.[1]
By emphasizing how dangerous it is for psychiatrists to diagnose public figures, and rendering it "unethical," we psychiatrists are accepting and feeding into the public's discrimination against psychiatric illness. In fact, research[1] shows that manic symptoms enhance creativity and resilience, and depressive conditions increase realism and empathy. Manic-depressive leaders, I've argued, can be our best leaders. But risks also exist.
Thus, the debate about the Goldwater rule needs to happen, I would suggest, in the context of being clear that having a psychiatric diagnosis is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can have positive aspects.
Many thanks ... I agree with Ghaemi in many ways but wish he would've addressed it, also, from poit of view of the Responsibility and mandate to report a dangerous person ... someone whose views to, I believe, anyone trained in psychological thinking would see DJT as potentially dangerous to all God's children. Again ... Goldwater v. Tarasoff. With regard, as always ... Howard
ReplyDeleteI was so intent on the Goldwater rule that I forgot about Tarasoff, something I lived with in it’s expanded versions in Michigan and Massachusetts as the legal duty to warn for mandated reporters (which included teachers, physicians, school counselors, and therapists) since the mid-1970’s. As you know this meant that when we believed there was a belief the client was a danger to self or others we not only unbound from confidentiality rules, but were required to report this and make sure anyone in danger was warned. If I saw a child being abused in a supermarket I had a duty to report it to the authorities. Obviously the child or his parents weren’t my clients. I did no clinical assessment of them. But I had to call the police.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, that helps orient to my thoughts about Election-2016 and Trump. Practitioners are, indeed, under both of these ethical principles which are in opposition teach other, just as the passage from Lev 19 that pits the need for confidentiality against the need to intervene when someon is in danger. Cannot say why it disturbed Doherty on Citizen Therapist listserv. Perhaps, I was not sufficiently clear.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there’s me picking a fight with this guy:
ReplyDeletehttps://ethicsalarms.com/2016/09/03/presenting-three-new-rationalizations-narcissist-ethics-the-dead-horse-beaters-dodge-and-the-doomsday-license/
Which gave me a topic for today’s Daily Kos piece:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/3/1566532/-Ethicist-calls-Hillary-pathetic-16-times-but-also-pulls-a-Benghazi-quote-out-of-context