<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.9" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Retro-Journal: Bush, Stossel, and Unnatural Portents in Early 2001</title>
	<link>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/</link>
	<description>Conservatism for punks.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.9</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Ted</title>
		<link>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/#comment-14352</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 18:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/#comment-14352</guid>
					<description>"Szasz, inspired partly by his self-analysis of his childhood tendency to be a malingerer (convincing himself he was ill to get attention from his mother)"
Do you have a reference for this claim?

"by Szasz’s absurd criteria, Alzheimer’s did not exist back in the 1980s when my grandmother died from it"
No, he doesn't say that. Until the particular physical pathology was located, it was not a proven disease. This does not rule out weird behavior being strongly related to a putative literal disease, which of course can help with research into the *bodily* malfunction. Furthermore, medical treatment is premised on consent, which psychiatry is not.

"Szasz followers never really seem to have a comeback to the argument that all sorts of real, physical, objective illnesses are diagnosed based on behavior and patient reports rather than direct observation of the physical damage"
What comeback is required? You seem to be confusing diagnosis and disease here. There are four (logically) possible scenarios involving diagnosis and disease - having neither, having one but not the other (either way), and having both. When the same set of possibilities is applied to mental illness, it is obvious not only that there is nothing behind the diagnosis, but that irrespective of medical advances, only the (prescriptive) diagnosis is important for the psychiatric establishment. The issue which those who denounce Szasz so often fail to address is why anyone with a putative disease should be coerced with what is officially called "treatment."

Sincerely,
Ted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Szasz, inspired partly by his self-analysis of his childhood tendency to be a malingerer (convincing himself he was ill to get attention from his mother)&#8221;<br />
Do you have a reference for this claim?</p>
<p>&#8220;by Szasz’s absurd criteria, Alzheimer’s did not exist back in the 1980s when my grandmother died from it&#8221;<br />
No, he doesn&#8217;t say that. Until the particular physical pathology was located, it was not a proven disease. This does not rule out weird behavior being strongly related to a putative literal disease, which of course can help with research into the *bodily* malfunction. Furthermore, medical treatment is premised on consent, which psychiatry is not.</p>
<p>&#8220;Szasz followers never really seem to have a comeback to the argument that all sorts of real, physical, objective illnesses are diagnosed based on behavior and patient reports rather than direct observation of the physical damage&#8221;<br />
What comeback is required? You seem to be confusing diagnosis and disease here. There are four (logically) possible scenarios involving diagnosis and disease - having neither, having one but not the other (either way), and having both. When the same set of possibilities is applied to mental illness, it is obvious not only that there is nothing behind the diagnosis, but that irrespective of medical advances, only the (prescriptive) diagnosis is important for the psychiatric establishment. The issue which those who denounce Szasz so often fail to address is why anyone with a putative disease should be coerced with what is officially called &#8220;treatment.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sincerely,<br />
Ted.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Todd Seavey</title>
		<link>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/#comment-13436</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/#comment-13436</guid>
					<description>By the way, five cool things about that video: 

--uses big-columns set from the movie

--David Gilmour surprise appearance 

--Ridley Scott film direction 

--Tim Curry of Rocky Horror fame as horned Prince of Darkness 

--Tom Cruise unseen despite starring in the film, due to some contractual problem, thus taint of Scientology avoided</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, five cool things about that video: </p>
<p>&#8211;uses big-columns set from the movie</p>
<p>&#8211;David Gilmour surprise appearance </p>
<p>&#8211;Ridley Scott film direction </p>
<p>&#8211;Tim Curry of Rocky Horror fame as horned Prince of Darkness </p>
<p>&#8211;Tom Cruise unseen despite starring in the film, due to some contractual problem, thus taint of Scientology avoided
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Todd Seavey</title>
		<link>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/#comment-13435</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:56:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/#comment-13435</guid>
					<description>Egad.  How embarrassing -- and mere days before I am scheduled to start this blog's "Month of the Nerd" featuring all sci-fi-type-stuff all the time.

To make up for my error (now corrected above), I offer something that looks _even more_ like those childhood dreams, the video, fittingly, for "Is Your Love Strong Enough?" by Bryan Ferry (from the movie _Legend_, which was out a couple decades before Peter Jackson's LOTR but may have been influenced by Ralph Bakshi's animated version, Tolkien's text descriptions, or for that matter the big crazy pillars in St. Peter's):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e2m__rbD2IM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Egad.  How embarrassing &#8212; and mere days before I am scheduled to start this blog&#8217;s &#8220;Month of the Nerd&#8221; featuring all sci-fi-type-stuff all the time.</p>
<p>To make up for my error (now corrected above), I offer something that looks _even more_ like those childhood dreams, the video, fittingly, for &#8220;Is Your Love Strong Enough?&#8221; by Bryan Ferry (from the movie _Legend_, which was out a couple decades before Peter Jackson&#8217;s LOTR but may have been influenced by Ralph Bakshi&#8217;s animated version, Tolkien&#8217;s text descriptions, or for that matter the big crazy pillars in St. Peter&#8217;s):</p>
<p><a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=e2m__rbD2IM" rel="nofollow">http://youtube.com/watch?v=e2m__rbD2IM</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Scott Nybakken</title>
		<link>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/#comment-13433</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://toddseavey.com/2008/04/25/retro-journal-bush-stossel-and-unnatural-portents-in-early-2001/#comment-13433</guid>
					<description>Nerd alert: the vast, pillar-filled underground chamber in Lord of the Rings is the great underground city of Moria, not the blasted, ash-covered plains of Mordor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nerd alert: the vast, pillar-filled underground chamber in Lord of the Rings is the great underground city of Moria, not the blasted, ash-covered plains of Mordor.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
